Friday, March 19, 2010

Ang Gospel ayon kay Matthew

ITO ang bahagi PAGSUSURI na ginawa ni DANIEL B. WALLACE na may pamagat na "Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline".

Diyan po ay MAKIKITA NATIN ang mga EBIDENSIYA na MAGPAPATUNAY na ang APOSTOL na si MATTHEW ang GUMAWA o BUMUO sa EBANGHELYO na INIUUGNAY sa KANYA.

INILALABAS po NATIN ang ISINULAT ni WALLACE bilang SAGOT sa PANINIRA ng isang BALIK ISLAM na PILIT na MINAMALIIT ang BIBLIYA.

Ang ginagamit po nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com ay ang Mt 9:9 kung saan INAAKALA niya na porke gumamit ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE si MATTHEW ay HINDI na SIYA ang GUMAWA ng BINUO NIYANG EBANGHELYO.

Para po sa ARTIKULO kaugnay sa PAGGAMIT ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE sa PANULAT ni MATTHEW ay paki CLICK po ang LINK na ito: Matthew hindi nagsulat ng Ebanghelyo?.

HAPPY READING po.


Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline

A. The Author
There are three pieces of evidence to consider if we are to arrive at any conclusion about the authorship of the first gospel: (1) the title, (2) external evidence, and (3) internal evidence. As will soon become apparent, not all of these categories bear equal weight.


1. The Title
The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.1 Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.2 The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.


2. External Evidence
The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”3 We have already discussed some of the possibilities of what Papias referred to in this statement.4 It may be helpful, in this place, to outline the general views: (1) “the oracles” (taV logiva) = the Gospel of Matthew; (2) “the oracles” = a sayings source (like Q); (3) Papias is not speaking about the Hebrew dialect, but he uses dialevkto" to mean “literary fashion”; thus, Matthew arranged his Gospel along Jewish-Christian lines; (4) Papias was wrong.

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of dialevkto". (3) Although Papias could have been wrong—and he was a man of meager intelligence (according to Eusebius)!—he is sufficiently early and well-connected with apostolic Christianity that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. (4) The best option, in our view, is that Papias was referring to a sayings source which Matthew wrote. If so, then Matthew in all probability incorporated this source into his gospel, after rearranging it.5 As we suggested in our section on the Synoptic Problem, this sayings source may well have constituted a portion of Q.6 In any event, the great probability is that Papias is referring to the apostle Matthew as an author of material on the life of Jesus. Whether this is proto-Matthew, Q, or Matthew, Matthean authorship of the first gospel is either directly or indirectly supported by the statement.

After Papias, Irenaeus wrote: “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.”7 It is obvious that Irenaeus got the gist of this information from Papias (since he was acquainted with his work), though he does add two interesting points: (1) the audience of Matthew’s work was the Jews (or Jewish Christians); (2) the time when this work was written was during Peter and Paul’s tenure in Rome. In light of Irenaeus’ dependence on Papias (as well as his interpretation of his statement), this part of the tradition does not receive an independent testimony.8 But Irenaeus adds the interesting point that the time when Matthew wrote this was when Peter and Paul were in Rome. This may be no more than a guess, for other information in the statement seems false.9 On the other hand, since Peter and Paul were not in Rome together until the early 60s, this may well help us to fix a date for Matthew’s Gospel, provided that this tradition has other corroborative evidence.

Still later, Origen assumed that Matthew penned his Gospel originally in Hebrew. However, Origen adds nothing to what Papias has said, and may well have assumed that Papias was speaking about the Gospel rather than a sayings source. After Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and others echoed the opinion of Matthean authorship.

The early external testimony is universal on two points: (1) Matthew wrote something related to the life of Jesus Christ; and (2) Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue. Little, if any, independent testimony exists however for the supposition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Nevertheless, the attachment of the name of Matthew to the first gospel may well indicate that it ultimately goes back to him, even if completed by a later compiler.

Added to this explicit testimony are the quotations of Matthew’s Gospel in the early patristic writers. It is quoted as early as 110 CE (by Ignatius), with a steady stream of patristic citations afterward. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted (and copied) far more often than either Mark or Luke. From earliest times, then, it was treated as canonical and authoritative on the life of Jesus Christ, regardless of authorship.

One final comment about external evidence should be added. Although there is always the possibility of a vested interest on the part of patristic writers to seek apostolic authorship for the anonymous books of the NT, this does not explain why Matthew and no other apostle was ever suggested for the first gospel. Indeed, not only was Matthew by no means the most prominent of the apostles, but he also would not seem to be as qualified as some others to write to Jewish Christians, in light of his former occupation. Would not Andrew or Philip or Bartholomew have been more likely candidates if an apostolic author were merely a figment of the early church? None of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans, and all figured more prominently in the gospel narratives. What is especially impressive is that Matthew and Matthew alone was suggested as the author of the first gospel.


3. Internal Evidence
The following are seven pieces of internal evidence which suggest, first, that the author was a Jew, and second, that he was Matthew.10


a. Familiarity with the Nation
The author was familiar with geography (2:23), Jewish customs (cf. 1:18-19), Jewish history (he calls Herod Antipas “tetrarch” instead of “king”). He displays a concern for the OT law (5:17-20) and puts an emphasis on the evangelistic mission to the Jewish nation as well (ch. 10). The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew.11


b. Hints of Semitisms in his Language
There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of tovte (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew za.12 Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton13 (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural (1:23; 7:16), etc. Although Matthew’s Greek is less Semitic than Mark’s, it does betray traces of Semitisms at times—even where none exists in the Markan parallel. If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., tovte) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.


c. His Use of Scripture
Gundry has ably pointed out how the author used the OT, especially in his formula quotations. Although there are many OT citations which correspond to the LXX rendering, his own introductory formulae (which are not found in either Mark or Luke) all seem to be free translations of the Hebrew.14 If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures.15


d. Attack on Pharisees
Matthew’s Gospel attacks the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders more than Mark or Luke do (cf. 3:7 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23). Perhaps the reason for this was, in part, due to how hard these religious leaders were on the tax-collectors (they associated them with sinners and Gentiles). Not much can be made of this however.


e. Frequent Use of Numbers
The author’s frequent use of numbers would be natural for a tax-collector. He divides things into three parts: the genealogy, the trilogies of miracles in chapters 8-9; five parts: five great sermons of Jesus, all with the same closing formula (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1); six corrections on the misuse of the Law (in chapter 5); seven woes, parables (ch. 13); etc. Again, not much can be made of this argument, else one would have to say that a tax-collector wrote the Apocalypse! But at least it is consistent with who Matthew was.


f. His Mention of Money
A more weighty argument is the author’s frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25); he alone of the synoptists speaks of gold and silver; Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant. The most reasonable hypothesis for this is that the author was quite familiar with money.


g. The Calling of Levi
Both Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27-28 speak of the calling of “Levi” while Matthew 9:9 calls him “Matthew.” But all the lists of the apostles refer to him as Matthew (Matt 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).16 Yet, what is remarkable is that only in the first gospel is Matthew called “the tax-collector” in the list of apostles. It may well be that the author is showing humility in this reference. In the least, however, Matthew’s Gospel is the only one which identifies the tax-collector whom Jesus called with Matthew the apostle. The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally.

Thus he could either be Matthew himself or an associate who later compiled the work. Against the compiler theory is Matt 9:9, which records the calling of Matthew: “it is significant that it is more self-deprecating than Luke’s account, which says that Matthew ‘left everything’ and followed Jesus”17 while Matthew simply says that he got up and followed Jesus. If the first gospel were not by Matthew, one would be at a loss to explain why the author seemed to deprecate Matthew in such subtle ways. A later compiler who knew and respected Matthew (probably a disciple of his), or worse, a “school of St. Matthew,” simply does not fit the bill.18

In sum, each piece of evidence is hardly weighty on its own. But taken together, there is a cumulative impression made on the reader that a bilingual Palestinian Jew, well acquainted with money, wrote this gospel. External testimony has already suggested Matthew as the author; the internal evidence does nothing to shake this impression. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt Matthean authorship.


4. Objections to Matthean Authorship
There are three primary objections to Matthean authorship, listed in descending order of value: (1) the improbable use of Mark by an apostle; (2) the high quality of the Greek of the gospel; and (3) the nonbiographical structure of the book.

(1) Assuming Markan priority, would an apostle use a gospel written by a non-apostle, or even any written source? This is not as weighty an argument as it appears, for “if Matthew thought Mark’s account reliable and generally suited to his purposes (and he may have known that Peter stood behind it), there can be no objection to the view that an apostle depended on a nonapostolic document.”19

This is analogous to the Revised Version translators (1881) using the King James Version. They intentionally supported the tradition of the KJV, and in fact wanted to emulate its translation wherever possible. However, they deviated from it in three distinct ways: (a) they wanted the new work to be based on more ancient MSS; (b) they had a better grasp of the Greek than did the KJV translators and sought to make a more accurate translation even where the textual basis was identical; (c) they wanted to remove archaisms which were no longer clearly understood. The motivation behind the RV was “to make a good thing better.” What is most significant for our purposes is the fact that even though the RV translators knew Greek much better than did the KJV translators and had earlier MSS to work with, they still wanted to keep in line with the KJV tradition as much as possible. The analogy with Matthew and Mark is obvious: even though Matthew was an eyewitness, he wanted to use Mark’s Gospel as much as possible, both to affirm its reliability and as a ready framework for the sermons of Jesus; but he also wanted to correct its grammar in places, and supplement it with pertinent information in other places.20

(2) Kümmel adds three other arguments: “the systematic and therefore nonbiographical form of the structure of Mt, the late-apostolic theological position, and the Greek language of Mt make this proposal completely impossible.”21 Of these, only the first and third are really weighty, for the lateness of the theology is so intertwined with the supposedly late dates of other NT books and assumptions of uniformly linear development that it carries little conviction.22 Of the other two considerations, one will be dealt with here and the other will take up our last point.

The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans.23 Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews. 24

(3) “The systematic and nonbiographical” structure of Matthew25 does not preclude Matthean authorship. Such is a non sequitur because “(1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) Kümmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework.”26


5. Conclusion on Authorship
Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.27



NOTES:
1 The simplest inscription is kataV Maqqaivon, found in Aleph B (“according to Matthew”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (D W [“The Gospel according to Matthew”), while still later it was called a{gion eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (Byzantine MSS and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Matthew”).

2 So Guthrie, 43.

3 Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).

4 Cf. our discussion under the “Synoptic Problem” (which has been previously posted).

5 This rearrangement suggests that the Matthean sermons may not have been literary units originally. Such indeed seems to be the case except for the Olivet Discourse. This is due to two factors: (1) The Olivet Discourse is found in Mark intact, suggesting that it at least circulated as a unit in the oral period (and further that it is not due to Matthew’s rearranging of material); (2) on the analogy of the Gospel of Thomas, there would be little interest in prophecy in a sayings source (probably because prophecy cannot be laid out easily in isolated aphorisms). Hence, in spite of critical scholarship’s dissecting of the Olivet Discourse into separate pericopae which melted into one literary unit before the gospels were written, this sermon at least has all the earmarks of going back to the historical Jesus en toto, in situ. (Incidentally, this view of the Olivet Discourse finds indirect confirmation in a recent work on Q. Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Traditions: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus [SNTSMS 61, 1989] points out that “collections of aphoristic sayings . . . [are] relatively free of domination by strongly eschatological motifs” [9]. Thus the Olivet Discourse probably did not circulate as isolated sayings.)

6 One substantial problem for this view is that in the earlier fragment (2:15) Papias speaks of Mark recording Peter’s sermons on taV logiva kuriakw'n. But the context clearly indicates that both the Lord’s deeds and words are in view. If so, this would seem to make logiva in 2:16 (Papias’ comment on Matthew’s literary endeavors) also refer to the Lord’s words and deeds, precluding the meaning of a sayings source like Q. However, Papias could be using the genitive objectively in 2:15 and subjectively in 2:16, and logiva would retain the same meaning each time: “the sayings about the Lord” (which Peter spoke), “the sayings by the Lord” (which Matthew recorded).

7 Eusebius, HE 5.8.2.

8 However, it should be stressed again that Irenaeus’ words ought not necessarily be taken to mean that Matthew wrote a Gospel in a Semitic tongue, for Irenaeus says that he wrote a “book about the gospel,” or perhaps, “a book about the good news,” In light of this, Irenaeus may well mean that Matthew wrote something other than a gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic).

9 Specifically, Peter and Paul did not “found” the church in Rome.

10 For the most part, this material is taken from class notes on the NT course “The Gospel of Matthew,” taught by Dr. Harold Hoehner, fall 1977. It should be noted, however, that Hoehner most likely gathered most of his material from Stanley D. Toussaint’s dissertation, “The Argument of Matthew,” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1957), 10-13.

11 So strong is this evidence that even Ernst von Dobschütz, who disputed Matthean authorship, felt that the work was written by a Rabbi! Cf. his article in ZNW 27 (1928) 338-48, later translated (“Matthew as Rabbi and Catechest”) and incorporated into The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 19-29.

12 H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (139), however makes way too much of this when he suggests that Matthew was thinking in a Semitic tongue, though writing in Greek. Such a view could be cogently argued for the Apocalypse, but hardly for Matthew (indeed, most scholars find very few Semitisms in Matthew).

13 “There are still 21 instances of asyndeta in Matthew’s Markan sections where Mark has no asyndeton,” N. Turner, Style, 31.

14 Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew.

15 Cf. R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Against Longenecker, cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew (although Gundry would say that Matthew did not get his hermeneutics from rabbinic circles, he still argues cogently that Matthew learned it from the Lord Jesus himself).

16 Guthrie (52) queries, “Could it be that for the author of this gospel the name Matthew came to have greater significance than the name Levi, from the time of his dramatic call to follow Jesus? It is not impossible that this is a conscious personal touch.” It is further possible that Matthew used this name, rather than Levi, just as Paul referred to himself as “Paul” rather than “Saul,” even though both names are used of him in Acts. Hagner adds a helpful insight here as well: “It is virtually certain that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on Mark in this passage [9:9]. Mark and Luke, had they been dependent upon Matthew, would hardly have felt free to substitute the name of an otherwise unknown person, Levi, for the name of an apostle. It is thus very probable that the author of the Gospel of Matthew changed the name Levi to Matthew in this passage. Also, as though to alert the readers to the intended equation of the two names, when in the next chapter (10:3) the Evangelist lists the Twelve, he alone adds ‘the tax collector’ to Matthew’s name. But why did the Evangelist change the name Levi to Matthew? The most natural conclusion is that the tax collector Levi came to be called Matthew (a name so appropriate to the situation) after his conversion, and that this new name, now the name of an apostle, was significant to the author of the Gospel—a Gospel that, according to tradition, derived from that very Matthew” (D. A. Hagner, “Matthew,” in ISBE 3:280).

17 D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8), 224.

18 This is not analogous to Mark’s explicit and overt virtual belittling of Peter in his gospel, for he got the substance of his gospel from Peter’s own sermons in which Peter no doubt had said these self-deprecating remarks. There is absolutely no ancient testimony which suggests that Matthew was written by disciples of Matthew, however, rendering the compiler view improbable.

19 Carson, Matthew, 18.

20 We could add further that the ancient world did not have the same view of plagiarism as does the modern (western) world. Thus, 2 Peter could utilize Jude (or Jude, 2 Peter) without giving any credit. Not only this, but in spite of F. C. Baur’s protests, the early Christian community probably had greater harmony on the top levels than we have been led to believe in the last 150+ years. If so, then Matthew may well have intended to write his gospel, in part, to affirm Mark’s reliability.

21 Kümmel, 121.

22 Indeed, some scholars who are not predisposed toward Markan priority would date Matthew as early as the 40s (so Hoehner, perhaps Reicke; even Robinson entertains this idea). Carson, who is predisposed toward Markan priority, still can say, “the alleged lateness of the theological position may be disputed at every point” (Matthew, 18).

23 Cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew, 178-85.

24 See our extended discussion of the bilingualism of first century Palestine in Exegetical Syntax.

25 Part and parcel to this is the less vivid style of Matthew (as opposed to Mark). Cf. Turner, Style, 40-41. This, however, may well be a matter of one’s personality: Peter was well-known as giving stirring messages (and Mark apparently based his gospel on Peter’s messages), while we know next to nothing about Matthew’s style. However, if modern analogies are worth anything, accountants and tax-collectors are usually detail-oriented people, not given to exaggeration nor excessive emotion (indeed, most of the ones I know are fairly boring!). This less vivid, more systematic style, may well be in keeping with Matthew’s personality—and in fact might be an argument in favor of Matthean authorship!

26 Carson, Matthew, 18.

27 For perhaps the best defense of Matthean authorship of this gospel, cf. Gundry’s Matthew, 609-622.

111 comments:

  1. Masyadong malalim na ito para sa isang balik islam na walang alam sa biblia.

    Kung di sana sila pabaya noon eh di alam nila ang biblia nila. kaso nagpabaya sila kaya madali silang nabuyo ng mga muslim.

    ipagdasal na lamang natin sila.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CENON BIBE:
    Kahit po IPINALIWANAG NA ay HINDI PA TALAGA MAKAUNAWA itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM.

    Muslim;
    Oo nga ipinaliwanag ninyo na iyan particular ang Matt 9:9 ay THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE malinaw po yon! Eh kahit sinong may UTAK naman talaga kapag binabasa nya ang Matt 9:9 ay tyak sasabbihin ng may UTAK na ito na ang Matthew pala ay hindi sulat ni Matthew!

    Cenon Bibe;
    HINDI po NIYA MATUTULAN na si MATTHEW ang GUMAWA sa EBANGHELYO kaya INULIT NA LANG ang MALI NIYANG AKALA.


    Muslim;
    THe Gospel of Matthew in itself prove that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel. Read;

    Matthew 9:9
    "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him."

    Dapat po mga giliw na taga subaybay kong kay Matthew talaga ang nasabing Gospel o kong si matthew talaga ang nagsulat ng nasabing Gospel ay ganito dapat ang pagkasabi;

    ("And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw ME, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto ME, Follow me. And I arose, and followed him.")

    Hindi po ba ganon dapat ang mababasa natin mga giliw na taga subaybay kong ang nasabing Gospel ay sulat talaga ni Matthew! But unfortunately hindi po ganon ang nababasa natin mga giliw na taga subaybay! Bagkus ang nababasa po natin mula sa nasabing Gospel ay lalo pa pong nagpapatunay na ang Gospel of Matthew is not being authored by Matthew. Simple! ang nasabing Gospel mismo ang nagpapatunay!


    Cenon Bibe;
    Porke raw po gumamit ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE ay HINDI na raw si MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT.

    Heto po ang MAS MALINAW na PALIWANAG.

    Minsan, kapag kausap ko ang aking mga ANAK ay sinasabi ko sa kanila:

    "Anak, aalis ang DADDY."

    Iyan po ay THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE.

    Muslim;
    Ito po ang paliwanag nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay;

    "Minsan, kapag kausap ko (MGA GILIW NA TAGA SUBAYBAY TANDAAN PO NINYO SYA DAW PO MISMO ANG KAUSAP NG ANAK NYA!) ang aking mga ANAK ay sinasabi ko sa kanila:"

    "Anak, aalis ang DADDY."

    "Iyan po ay THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE."

    Sino po ang nagsasalita at kuma-usap sa kanyang ANAK? mga giliw na taga subaybay? Katulong po ba o si Cenon Bibe din po mismo? Eh papaano po maging Third Person Narative yon eh sya din po mismo ang kumaka-usap sa anak nya?

    Naintindihan kaya nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay ang mga pinagsasabi nya? Pero kong ang nasabing salita po mga giliw na taga subaybay ay nagmula o nanggagaling sa isang katulong o di kaya sa ina ng BATA ay pwede po ang Third Person Narative dyan! Pero kong pansinin nyo po si Cenon Bibe din po mismo ang kumakausap sa ANAK nya, mula sa kanyang po ibinigay na Halimbawa!

    Cenon Bibe;
    Sa SIMPLE pong PANG-UNAWA NINYO ay SINO po ang "DADDY" riyan? IBA po bang DADDY o AKO MISMONG DADDY ng mga ANAK KO?

    E di AKO RIN PO MISMO. MALINAW na MALINAW.

    KAYO MISMO GETS NINYO, di po ba?

    At ultimong MGA BATA ay NAKAKAUNAWA sa PANANALITANG IYAN.

    Muslim;
    Gets nyo daw po? Itong mga ito salita ng salita bout Third Person Narative pero tila kahit sila mismo hindi nila unawa ang ibig sabihin ng Third Person Narative;

    Gagamitin ko po mga giliw na taga subaybay ay halimbawa nitong si Cenon Bibe but this time i have to change a bit from what Cenon Bibe has been exhibited inhere! To show them and Teach them the real Third Person Narrative;

    "Anak, ACCORDING TO YOUR DADDY aalis daw SYA."

    Iyan po ay THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE. cENON bIBE at mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    narrative:
    1. story: a story or an account of a sequence of events in the order in which they happened
    2. process of narrating: the art or process of telling a story or giving an account of something
    3. story in literary work: the part of a literary work that is concerned with telling the story

    Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Muslim;
    Kita nyo katakot-takot ngayon ang naging paliwanag nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay para kontrahin lamang nya ang malinaw na nakasulat sa kanyang Bibliya Matt 9:9 at nagpapatunay na ang Matt ay hindi talaga authored by Matthew. Kong ano-anong referensya pa yata ginagamit nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay pero ang katotohanan po ay malinaw na mababasaa mismo sa kanilang Bibliya!

    Cenon Bibe yan bang napakaraming mong paliwanag ngayon nanggagaling ba yan sa Bibliya? o baka naman unawa lang din yan mula saa isang Bobo at Tanga na Katilad mo? Cenon Bibe sa Bibliya ka kumuha ng panlaban o panguntra sa talatang Matthew 9:9 Bible ang ipinakita ko sayo bilang patunay sa sinassabi ko, tapus ikaw na nagpakilala bilang isang Kristyano kono kong ano-ano lang ginagamit mo! Para itapat sa katotohanang sinasbi ko na nagmula mismo sa Bibliya mo? Nakakaawa ka naman Kristyano ka pa man ding naturingan pero parang isinangtabi mo nalang ang iyong Bibliya eh!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cenon Bibe;
    MAPAPANSIN po NINYO na NEVER NIYANG NAPATUNAYAN na LITERAL ang sinasabing 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS sa Mt12:40.

    Tulad po ng dati ay NAGPAULIT-ULIT NA LANG SIYA pero HINDI NIYA NAIPAKITA na LITERAL na 3 ARAW at 3 GABI ang PAKAHULUGAN ng PANGINOONG HESUS diyan.
    Sa kabilang dako, NAPATUNAYAN po natin na HINDI IYAN LITERAL.
    Mababasa po NATIN na HINDI LITERAL ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS sa LINK natin na ito:

    3 Days and 3 Nights

    3 Days and 3 Nights ayon kay Hesus

    Paki basa na lang po para KAYO MISMO ang MAKAKITA na HINDI LITERAL ang PAGKAKAGAMIT ng PANGINOONG HESUS sa 3 Days and 3 Nights sa Mt12:40.
    Salamat po.

    Muslim;
    Ito po Cenon Bibe ipost ko po ang
    Matt 12:38,39 & 40
    38
    Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
    39
    But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
    40
    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    Eh ano naman po ba ang nakasaad sa Book of Jonah mga giliw na taga subaybay? Bakit ito ang ibinigay na halimbawa ni Kristo? Idiomatic Expression din po kaya ito tulad ng ipinagpipilitan nitong di Ceon Bibe mga giliw na taga subybay? bueno po basahin po natin;

    Jonah 1:17
    ".... And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

    Ito pa po ang katangahang sinasabi nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay;
    [MAPAPANSIN po NINYO na NEVER NIYANG NAPATUNAYAN na LITERAL ang sinasabing 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS sa Mt12:40.]

    Eh sya ba, Ikaw Cenon Bibe napatunayan mo/nya rin ba mula sa Bibliya na ang sinasbi ni kristo na iyon ay isang IDIOMATIC Expression? hindi rin po mga giliw na taga subaybay?! Hindi po napatunayan nitong si Cenon Bibe! wala po syang ipinakita sa atin na kahit isang talata mula sa book of Matt para supportahan ang kanyang katangahan! ni minsan po hindi sinasabi ni Kristo, mga giliw na taga subaybay na ang sinasabi nya pong iyon ay isa IDIOMASTIC Expression lamang! Saan naman po kaya nakuha ang Ideya nitong si Cenon Bibe na ang Matt 12:40 ay isang IDIMATIC Expression lamang? Meron kaya syang patunay na galing mismo sa Bibliya? o di kaya salita mismo ni Kristo?

    Alam ko po na hinding hindi kailan man talaga matatanggap nitong si Cenon Bibe ang sinasabing katotohanan na iyan ni Kristo mga giliw na tagaa subaybay, dahil kukontra po kasi yan sa KataNgahan nilang Paniniwala at turo ng kanilang Simbahan!

    Sa kabilang dako po ako/kami ay Naniniwala lamang at Umaayon na walang Pagdududa sa mga Sinasabi ni Kristo na iyon mula sa
    Matt 12:40

    "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

    Dagdag na pagyayabang pa po nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay [Sa kabilang dako, NAPATUNAYAN po natin na HINDI IYAN LITERAL.] Anong Talata na kong saan sinasabi yan ni Kristo Cenon Bibe? Saan po natn mababasa yan sa Mtthew na si Kristo mismo ang nagsabi na ang mga pangungusap nyang iyan ay Hindi Literal meron ka na bang naipakita na kahit isang talata mula s Bibliya, at si Kristo mismo ang nagsabi? Eh WALA pa naman ah? Puro ka lang daldal!

    Dagdag KaSinungalingan at Pagmamayabang nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay; [Mababasa po NATIN na HINDI LITERAL ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS sa LINK natin na ito:] Mga giliw na taga subaybay yan po bang Link na yan ay nagmula mismo kay Kristo? Si Kristo po kaya ang Nangungusap mula sa nasabing LINK na iyan? Anong talata po kaya sa Bibliya yang nasa LINK na iyan?

    Alin po ba ang dapat ninyong paniniwalan mga giliw na taga subaybay ang Isang Link na Sumasalungat mismo sa Bibliya at sa Sinasabi ni Kristo at gawagawa lamang at unawa lamang ng isang Taong BObo na katulad nitong si Cenon Bibe o ang Bibliya mismo at ang sinasabi ni Kristo?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous said..
    "Para itapat sa katotohanang sinasbi ko na nagmula mismo sa Bibliya mo? Nakakaawa ka naman Kristyano ka pa man ding naturingan pero parang isinangtabi mo nalang ang iyong Bibliya eh!"

    ANG LAKAS NG LOOB MO NA SABIHING KATOTOHANAN ANG SINABI MO MULA SA BIBLIYA EH DI KA NAMAN KRSITIYANO! AT PAANO MO NAMAN MAIINTINDIHAN ITO NG TAMA ABER?

    BASAHIN MO ANG TALATA MULA SA ACTS 8:30-31
    "And Philip ran there to him and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you indeed understand what you are reading? And he said, How can I unless some man should guide me? And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him."

    MALINAW DYAN ANG HINDI MO MAIINTINDIHAN NG TAMA ANG NILALAMAN NG BIBLIYA KUNG WALANG MAGTUTURO SA IYO NITO. ANG GINAGAWA MO AY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION LAMANG KAYA PAANO KA MAKAKASIGURO NA ANG PAGKAUNAWA MO ANG KATOTOHANAN AT TUNAY NA PALIWANAG SA NABABASA MO SA BIBLIYA?

    ReplyDelete
  6. hehehh npakahina talaga ng kokote nitong balik-Islam ang bobo heheheh..

    Huwag na nga lang ipilit dahil kahit anong gawin hindi mauunawaan ng balik-islam kasi nga bobo heheheh..

    Tatanga-tanga 3rd person narrative hindi alam heheheh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Iyan po ay THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE. cENON bIBE at mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    narrative:
    1. story: a story or an account of a sequence of events in the order in which they happened
    2. process of narrating: the art or process of telling a story or giving an account of something
    3. story in literary work: the part of a literary work that is concerned with telling the story

    Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    CENON BIBE:
    Iyan daw po ang KAHULUGAN ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE.

    NASAAN po yung THIRD PERSON? DEFINITION LANG ng NARRATIVE ang nariyan e.

    BASTA lang MAKAPAGPAKITA ng REPERENSIYA e AKALA NIYA e OKAY na.

    NAPAKABABAW po TALAGA MAG-ISIP nitong BALIK ISLAM na ITO. Kaya po NAPAKADALI rin NIYANG NALOKO at NAITALIKOD sa TUNAY na DIYOS e.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Kita nyo katakot-takot ngayon ang naging paliwanag nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay para kontrahin lamang nya ang malinaw na nakasulat sa kanyang Bibliya Matt 9:9 at nagpapatunay na ang Matt ay hindi talaga authored by Matthew.

    CENON BIBE:
    ANDAMI na nga po NATING PALIWANAG e KAHIT ISA ay WALANG NATUTULAN itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM. Kaya ayan po, NAGPAULIT-ULIT NA LANG dahil WALANG MAISAGOT.

    HINDI NIYA MAPAPATUNAYAN na HINDI SI MATTHEW ang GUMAWA ng GOSPEL na NAKAUGNAY sa KANYA.

    NAGPAPAGOD LANG itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na ITO.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Cenon Bibe yan bang napakaraming mong paliwanag ngayon nanggagaling ba yan sa Bibliya? o baka naman unawa lang din yan mula saa isang Bobo at Tanga na Katilad mo?

    CENON BIBE:
    HINDI KA LANG MAKATUTOL sa mga PALIWANAG KO. Hehehe.

    OBVIOUS po ba?

    ReplyDelete
  10. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Kong ano-anong referensya pa yata ginagamit nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay pero ang katotohanan po ay malinaw na mababasaa mismo sa kanilang Bibliya!

    CENON BIBE:
    E ito pong PALAMURANG WALANG ALAM, NASAAN po ang REPERENSIYA NIYA na BATAY sa Mt9:9 ay HINDI NGA SI MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT sa GOSPEL na NAKAUGNAY sa KANYA?

    WALA po. WALA KASING BATAYAN ang PANINIWALA NIYA kundi sa KAWALAN NIYA ng ALAM at KAMALIAN ng KANYANG PANG-UNAWA.

    NAKAPAKABABAW MAG-ISIP nitong BALIK ISLAM na ITO.

    Sa ATIN pong MGA KRISTIYANO ay MAHALAGA ang KAALAMAN at KARUNUNGAN. DIYAN po KASI LUMALABAS ang KATOTOHANAN.

    Ang KATOTOHANAN po ay DAAN sa KALIGTASAN.

    2 Thessalonians 2:13
    "[Stand Firm] But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning GOD CHOSE YOU TO BE SAVED through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and THROUGH BELIEF IN THE TRUTH."

    NAKIKITA po NINYO?

    TAYO ay NALILIGTAS sa PAMAMAGITAN ng PANINIWALA sa KATOTOHANAN.

    PURIHIN ang DIYOS!

    Diyan din natin makikita na WALANG KALIGTASAN itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO na WALANG BATAYAN sa KATOTOHANAN ang mga SINASABI.

    ReplyDelete
  11. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Cenon Bibe sa Bibliya ka kumuha ng panlaban o panguntra sa talatang Matthew 9:9 Bible ang ipinakita ko sayo bilang patunay sa sinassabi ko, tapus ikaw na nagpakilala bilang isang Kristyano kono kong ano-ano lang ginagamit mo! Para itapat sa katotohanang sinasbi ko na nagmula mismo sa Bibliya mo?

    CENON BIBE:
    At SINO ang NAGMAMAHAL sa BIBLIYA? IKAW na NAGSASABI na BASURA ang BIBLIYA?

    NAGPAPATAWA KANG PALAMURA ka. Hehehe.

    MASYADO KANG PLASTIK at SINUNGALING.

    KUNG NAGMAMAHAL KA sa BIBLIYA ay HINDI KA TATALIKOD KAY KRISTO.

    BAKIT KA TUMALIKOD?

    Dahil NANIWALA KA sa mga SINUNGALING na NANIRA sa BIBLIYA.

    Tapos ngayon ay IKAW NA ang NAGSISINUNGALING LABAN sa BIBLIYA.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Muslim;
    papaano ka maniniwala sa akin eh kong si kristo nga at ang kanyang mga sinasabi hindi mo rin pinaniniwalaan eh! /11:13 PM

    may sa demonyo ka kasi eh /11:14 PM

    kaya hindi ka naniniwala sa mga naniniwala sa mga sinasabi ni kristo! 11:15 PM

    it goes without saying your a devil man! 11:15 PM

    Cenon Bibe;
    Problema mo yan 11:15 PM

    Wala kang mapakitang literal d b? Tapos usapan 11:15 PM

    Takot ka sa blog ko. Tapos usapan 11:15 PM

    Muslim;
    ako magkakaproblema na naniniwala kay kristo oh ikaw ang may problema? 11:15 PM

    Cenon Bibe;
    Nagsinungaling ka pa. Palamura ka na ganyan ka pa 11:16 PM

    Muslim;
    tingin mo magandang ipost ito sa blog ano? tingin mo? 11:16 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ikaw naniwala sa mali mong unawa problema mo yan 11:17 PM

    Wala kang napatunayan. 11:17 PM

    Sarili mo lang pinaniwalaan mo 11:17 PM

    Muslim;
    ako na umaayon sa sinasabi ni Kristo bout 3 Days & 3 Nights nagsisinunagling? o ikaw ang nagsisinungaling ng baluktotin mo ang matt 12:40? 11:18 PM

    Cenon Bibe;
    Buhay ako kay Kristo. Ikaw tyak impierno 11:18 PM
    Wala na. Tapos na usapan 11:18 PM

    Muslim;
    ano mali ang sinasabi ni Kristo bout 3 Days & 3 Nights? 11:18 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Maniwala ka sa mali mong unawa. Problema mo yan 11:18 PM
    Out of context ka talaga 11:19 PM

    Muslim;
    naniniwala ako sa sinasabi ni Kristo Matt 12:40 3 Days & 3 Nights! eh ikaw pinaniniwalaan mo ba ang sinasabi ni Kristo na ito? 11:19 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ikaw lang may prnblema 11:20 PM

    Tapos na yan. Problema mo na yan 11:21 PM

    Muslim;
    tingin ko ikaw ang may malaking problema dito! gusto mo pang higitan yata si Kristo eh... 11:21 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Maniwala ka sa mali mong unawa. Problema mo yan 11:22 PM

    Muslim;
    pinaniniwalaan ko ang malinaw na sinasabi ni Kristo sa matt 12:40 3 Days & 3 Nights! 11:23 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ako nauunawaan ko yan. Ikaw hindi. Problema mo yan 11:23 PM

    Muslim;
    eh ikaw? /11:23 PM

    papaano mo inuunawa ang matt 12:40? ha? 1 Days & 2 Nights? tama ba o salungat sa sinasabi ni Kristo? 11:24 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    E d ipost mo. 11:24 PM
    Ngayon mo na ipost. Pwede ba? Lahat ha 11:25 PM
    Unawa ko yan. Naipaliwanag ko na yan e 11:25 PM
    Akala mo lang umayon ka 11:26 PM
    Problema mo na naniwala ka sa out of context mong unawa 11:26 PM
    Maliligtas ka ba ng mali mong unawa? 11:27 PM
    Alam mong d literal cnabi ni Kristo. Naniwala ka sa mali mong unawa 11:28 PM
    Pinapaniwala mo sarili mo sa mali mong unawa. Problema mo yan 11:29 PM

    Muslim;
    alin ang maling unawa ang 3 Days & 3 Nights na syang sinasabi ni Kristo sa matt 12:40 o ang 1Day & 2 Nights na sabi ng DEMONYO? 11:29 PM
    cge sumagot ka? 11:29 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Sarili mo lang pinaniniwalaan mo. D c Kristo 11:31 PM
    Tugma kami ni Kristo. Kaya ligtas ako. Ikaw malaki problema mo 11:32 PM

    Muslim;
    inuunawa ko at iniintindi ang mga sinasabi ni Kristo ayun mismo sa pagkasabi nya! eh ikaw? saan mo pinagpupulot yang 1 Day & 2 Nights na unawa mo? 11:32 PM

    tugma kayo ni Kristo? hahahaha! ok ka lang? tugma kayo sa Matt 12:40? so naniniwala ka na rin pala ngayon sa sinasabi ni Kristo 3 Days & 3 Nights? 11:34 PM

    Cenon Bibe;
    Akala mo inuunawa mo. Mali mo lang unawa ang pinaniniwalaan mo. 11:34 PM
    Ikaw ang mali ang umawa 11:35 PM

    Muslim;
    ako ang mali na umaayon sa sinasabi ni Kristo bout 3 Days & 3 Nights sa Matt 12:40 o ikaw na kumukontra at sumasalungat sa sinasabi ni Kristo? 11:36 PM

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cenon Bibe
    D mo mapatunayan na magkatugma kayo ni Kristo ng unawa. Problema mo yan 11:36 PM
    Patunayan mong ayon syo c Kristo. 11:36 PM

    Muslim;
    umaayon lamang ako sa sinasabi ni kristo sa Matt12:40 mali ba yon? 11:36 PM
    inaayonan ko si Kristo at pinaniniwalaan ko ang sinasabi nyang 3 Days & 3 Nights sa Matt 12:40 at sinasabi mo ngayon na Mali yon? 11:38 PM
    ok rin talaga ang tama mo ah! 11:39 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ayon ka kay Kristo na d yan literal 11:39 PM

    Muslim;
    bakit kailan sinasabi ni kristo ang ganon? 11:40 PM

    meron ba? anong talata? ipakita mo! 11:40 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Patunayan mong d kami tugma. D mo magagawa. 11:40 PM

    Muslim;
    puro ka lang daldal eh 11:40 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ikaw may problema. Sarili mo lang inayunan mo 11:42 PM

    Muslim;
    ang malinaw na sabi ni Kristo sa matt 12:40 ay 3 Days & 3 Nights! ang sabi ng DEMONYO patungkol sa Matt 12:40 ay 1 Day & 2 Nights. tugma ba yan? 11:42 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Umayon ka sa mali mong unawa. D kay Kristo 11:42 PM

    Muslim;
    umaayon ako sa cnasabi ni Kristo at hindi yong sa maling unawa ng demonyo! 11:43 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Mali mo lang unawa inayunan mo 11:44 PM

    Muslim;
    alam ko kong may utak ka lang mangliliit ka na sa hiya! pero ang kapal mo rin talaga ano? 11:45 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ako may napatunayan na. Ikaw wala 11:45 PM

    Muslim;
    ang hirap mo ding umunawa! sapul na sapul ka na nga eh nagmamatigas ka pa rin sa mali mong unawa! 11:46 PM

    oo nga may napatunayan ka nga! napatunayan mo na MALI ka di ba? 11:46 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Nasa blog ko na yan 11:46 PM
    Wala ka napatunayan. Mali kasi unawa mo 11:46 PM
    Basahin mo sa blog ko 11:47 PM
    Nasagot ko na yan. Ikaw lang walang napatunayan 11:47 PM

    Muslim;
    kong mali ako eh di mali din si Kristo! ganon ba? 11:47 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Wala kang natutulan sa mga cnabi ko 11:47 PM

    Muslim;
    hoy! Bibliya mo mismo ang pinangtapat ko sa katangahan mo! 11:48 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    D mo mapatunayan na literal yan 11:48 PM
    Tama ang Biblia. Unawa mo ang mali 11:49 PM
    D ka maliligtas ng mali mong unawa 11:49 PM

    Muslim;
    bakit? at saan naman ang patunay mo na ang matt 12:40 ay idiomatic expression? anong talata sinasabi ni kristo ang ganon? na idiomatic expression? 11:49 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    D ka maliligtas ng mali mong akala 11:50 PM

    Muslim;
    nasaan ang patunay mong demonyo ka na idiomatic expression ang Matt 12:40 11:50 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Akala mo lang tugma kayo nh Kristo. Pagkakamali mo yan 11:51 PM

    Muslim;
    may sinasabi ba si Kristo na idiomatic expression ang matt 12:40? 11:51 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Never mo napatunayan na tugma kayo ni Kristo 11:51 PM

    Muslim;
    hahahahahaha! ang laki mo talagang tanga! 11:52 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Wala ka napatunayan 11:52 PM

    Takot ka sa blog ko. Wag ka na magtanong 11:52 PM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Muslim;
    wala naman akong tinatapat sa sinasabi ni Kristo na tulad ng ginawa mong demonyo ka! umaayon lamang ako sa sinasabi ni Kristo! Inaayunan ko ang sinasabi ni Kristo na 3 Days & 3 Nights 11:53 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Takot ka sa katotohanan 11:53 PM
    Wag ka na magtanong. Takot ka sa sagot ko 11:54 PM

    Muslim;
    ang katotohanan kong meron man ay ang mga sinasabi ni kristo na mababasa sa Bibliya at wala sa blog ng isang demonyo! 11:54 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Kahit magpilosopo ka mali ka pa rin 11:54 PM

    Muslim;
    siempre takot ako demonyo ka eh! mantakin mo gusto mo pang higitan si Kristo! may sa demonyo ka nga! 11:55 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Wala ka lang napatunayan. Problema mo yan 11:55 PM
    Ayon kay Kristo d literal yan. Paano ka na? 11:55 PM
    Ako tyak na tama. Ikaw tyak na mali 11:55 PM
    Takot ka sa totoo 11:55 PM

    Muslim;
    napatunayan ko na ikaw ay kumukontra at sumasalungat sa mga sinasabi ni kristo! 11:56 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Wala ka talaga maitatapat. Mali unawa mo e 11:56 PM
    Asan patunay mo? Wala 11:56 PM

    Muslim;
    pangtapat ko nga sayo ay ang Bibliya mo! at mga salita ni Kristo na pilit mong binaluktot! 11:57 PM

    ang malinaw na sabi ni Kristo sa matt 12:40 ay 3 Days & 3 Nights! ang sabi ng DEMONYO patungkol sa Matt 12:40 ay 1 Day & 2 Nights. tugma ba yan? 11:57 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ilang talata pantapat mo? 11:57 PM

    Muslim;
    isa pa nga lang sapul na sapul ka na kaagad eh... matt 12:40 pa nga lang 11:58 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    San malinaw na literal yan? Wala ka mapakita 11:58 PM

    Muslim;
    ibig mo bang sabihin nagsisinungaling si kristo dyan sa matt 12:40? 11:59 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Isa lang mali pa unawa mo. Malaki problema mo 11:59 PM

    Muslim;
    ako kaya ang may problema o ikaw? 11:59 PM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ikaw ang mali. D mo mapatunayan n tama unawa mo 12:00 AM

    Malaki problema mo. Iisa talata mo 12:00 AM

    Muslim;
    inaayunan ko nga ang sinasabi ni kristo na iyan! 12:01 AM

    anong ba ang problema mo? problema mo kasi kinuntra mo mga salita ni kristo eh 12:02 AM

    Cenon Bibe
    Ano inayunan mo? Tama ba unawa mo? 12:02 AM

    Ikaw may problema. Mali unawa mo 12:02 AM

    Muslim;
    inaayunan ko ang sinasabi ni Kristo! bakit mali ba ang sinasabi ni Kristo sa Matt 12:40? 3 Days & 3 Nights? sumagot ka! 12:04 AM

    mali ba ang sinsabi ni Kristo na syang inaayunan ko? 12:05 AM

    Cenon Bibe
    D yan literal. Umayon ka ba? 12:08 AM

    Never mo mapatutunayan na literal yan 12:08 AM

    Mali unawa mo. 12:08 AM

    Mali ka 12:08 AM

    Mali akala mo 12:08 AM

    Never mo mapatutunayan na tama unawa mo 12:09 AM

    Muslim;
    sinabi ba mismo ni kristo na di nga? 12:09 AM

    Cenon Bibe
    Nagsalita mismo c Kristo na patunay na d yan literal 12:10 AM

    Hirap ka lang tumanggap ng katotohanan 12:11 AM

    ReplyDelete
  15. Muslim;
    anong talata na sinasabi mismo ni Kristo na ang matt 12:40 ay idiomatic expression nga, may talata ka bang maipapakita? 12:12 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    Marami. Tingnan mo sa blog ko 12:12 AM

    Nakakatakot ang katotohanan. Kaya takot ka sa blog ko 12:13 AM

    Muslim;
    talata ng bibliya ang hinihingi ko na mismong si Kristo ang nagsasabi na ang matt 12:40 ay isang idiomatic expression? ibagay mo ang talata! huwag- 12:14 AM

    puro daldal 12:14 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    Marami na ako napatunayan. Ikaw wala pa 12:17 AM

    Alamin mo katotohanan. Gagaan loob mo 12:17 AM


    Muslim;
    napatunayan ko na kontra at salungat ka sa bibliya at mga salita ni Kristo! 12:18 AM

    Cenon Bibe
    Takot ka lang 12:19 AM


    Muslim:
    saan ako matatakot? 12:20 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    Akala mo lang may napatunayan ka 12:20 AM


    Muslim;
    at kanino ako matatakot? 12:20 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    Sa katotohanan 12:20 AM

    Takot ka na malaman na mali ka 12:20 AM

    Takot ka sa sarili mo 12:21 AM



    Muslim;
    mali ako? ako na umaayon sa mga sinasabi ni Kristo mali? bakit mali ba ang inaayonan ko na sinasabi ni Kristo? 12:21 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    D mo alam ang gagawin mo pag nalaman mong mali ka 12:21 AM

    Akala mo umayon ka. D mo naman mapatunayan 12:22 AM


    Muslim;
    ang bobo mo talaga! 12:22 AM


    Cenon Bibe
    Magmura ka na lang. Takot ka talaga 12:23 AM

    Muslim
    huh! 12:24 AM
    gustong-gusto mo talaga na minumura ka ah?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cenon Bibe;
    INILALABAS po NATIN ang ISINULAT ni WALLACE bilang SAGOT sa PANINIRA ng isang BALIK ISLAM na PILIT na MINAMALIIT ang BIBLIYA.

    Ang ginagamit po nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com ay ang Mt 9:9 kung saan INAAKALA niya na porke gumamit ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE si MATTHEW ay HINDI na SIYA ang GUMAWA ng BINUO NIYANG EBANGHELYO


    Muslim;
    Mga giliw na taga subaybay di magkandaugaga sa pagpapaliwanag nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay! Ito gamit ang mga pinagsusulat nitong si Daniel Wallace mga giliw na taga subaybay.

    Daniel B. Wallace
    Professor of New Testament Studies
    B.A., Biola University, 1975; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979; Ph.D., 1995.

    Pinaniniwalan po nitong si Cenon Bibe ang lahat ng Sinasabi nitong si Wallace mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    check this out;
    http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

    sa kabilang banda naman po ay tingnan po natin kong sino at ano naman po ang mga pagkatao nitong sila;

    Bart D. Ehrman ~ Curriculum Vitae
    DEGREES AND HONORS
    Ph.D.
    Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
    M.Div.
    M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
    B.A. B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

    http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=pd_sim_b_7

    http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=pd_sim_b_7#reader_0060630353

    Charles Francis Potter
    Dr Charles Francis Potter (1885-1962) was an American Unitarian minister, theologian and author.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Francis_Potter

    http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charlesfrancispotter.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering

    http://creation.com/barbara-thiering-a-short-critique

    Bakit kinakailangan nya ang mga sulat nitong si Wallace hindi po ba sapat ang mga patunay na makikita mula mismo sa Bibliya?

    patunay mula sa Bibliya; "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" ang tanong po is Matthew writing the gospel or the book of Matthew? Simple lamang po!
    then Read Matthew 9:9 then asked the question? Is Matthew writing Matthew again? the proof is vivid from the Bible its very clear! You dont need to have a second look or think twice perhaps! Its there and its vividly clear!

    ReplyDelete
  17. WALANG MAIPAKITA ang PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na MAGPAPATUNAY na LITERAL ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS sa Mt12:40.

    TINGNAN po NINYONG MABUTI ang USAPAN NAMIN sa TEXT na IPINOST pa NIYA RITO.

    KUNWARI pa SIYANG UMAAYON daw sa SINABI ng PANGINOONG HESUS. WALA naman SIYANG MAIPAKITANG LITERAL nga ang PAKAHULUGAN DOON ng DIYOS na NAGKATAWANG TAO.

    UMAYON daw siya kay KRISTO e ITINAKWIL NGA NIYA ng DIYOS ang PANGINOONG HESUS.

    PALAMURA NA, PLASTIK PA itong BALIK ISLAM na ito. O, di po ba?

    ReplyDelete
  18. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Mga giliw na taga subaybay di magkandaugaga sa pagpapaliwanag nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    CENON BIBE:
    WALA LANG MAISAGOT at WALANG MAITUTOL ITONG BALIK ISLAM na ITO, di po ba?

    MARAMI raw po TAYONG PALIWANAG? NATURAL, NASA KATOTOHANAN TAYO e.

    Ang NASA KATOTOHANAN HINDI MAUUBUSAN ng PRUWEBA at PATOTOO.

    E ITO pong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM? MAY NAIPAKIKITA BANG PATUNAY?

    WALA.

    E kasi po NASA KAMALIAN SIYA.

    Ang NASA MALI WALANG MASABI. LALO LANG LALABAS ang KAPALPAKAN NIYA kapag NAGSALITA SIYA.

    Sa DINAMI po ng PALIWANAG NATIN e WALA RIN SIYANG MATUTULAN.

    E kasi nga po, WALA SA KATOTOHANAN itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO. SIYA ay NASA KASINUNGALINGAN.

    Ang KATOTOHANAN ay HINDI MASISIRA ng KASINUNGALINGAN.

    WALA rin SIYANG ALAM.

    Kaya nga po NAPAKADALI NIYANG NAITALIKOD kay KRISTO na TUNAY na DIYOS e.

    Tingnan po ninyo, KAHIT sa PINASUKAN NIYA ay WALA SIYANG ALAM.

    TANUNGIN NINYO itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM kung SINO ang NAGSUGO sa PROPETANG IPINALIT NIYA sa DIYOS, HINDI SIYA MAKAKASAGOT.

    TANUNGIN NINYO itong TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO kung DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY sa QURAN na IPINALIT NIYA sa BIBLE, HINDI ULI SIYA MAKAKASAGOT.

    TANUNGIN po NINYO itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO kung DIYOS MISMO ang NAGTAYO sa RELIHIYON na PINASUKAN NIYA, HINDI RIN SIYA MAKAKASAGOT.

    WALA pong ALAM e. TAPOS MALAKAS ang LOOB na MANIRA kay KRISTO, sa BIBLIYA at sa MGA KRISTIYANO.

    Tapos, UMAAYON daw SIYA sa MGA SINABI ng PANGINOONG HESU KRISTO. O, di po ba? Ang PLASTIK NIYA.

    ReplyDelete
  19. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Ito gamit ang mga pinagsusulat nitong si Daniel Wallace mga giliw na taga subaybay.

    Daniel B. Wallace
    Professor of New Testament Studies
    B.A., Biola University, 1975; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979; Ph.D., 1995.

    Pinaniniwalan po nitong si Cenon Bibe ang lahat ng Sinasabi nitong si Wallace mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    check this out;
    http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

    CENON BIBE:
    AYUN, LUMABAS na naman itong BART EHRMAN na IPINAGMAMALAKI nitong WALANG ALAM na BALIK ISLAM.

    Sige po, PAKI BASA po NINYO ang LINK ng IBINIGAY nitong TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO at MAKIKITA NINYO kung GAANO KASINUNGALING ang EHRMAN na KINABIBILIBAN NIYA.

    Paki BASA lang po NINYO nang BUO ang SINABI ni DANIEL WALLACE.

    MAKIKITA po ninyo riyan na PATAS at OBJECTIVE si WALLACE.

    BALANSE SIYANG PUMUNA: Kung may maganda at tamang sinabi ni Ehrman ay nakikita iyon ni Wallace.

    Pero KUNG MALI ang SINABI at GINAWA ni EHRMAN ay TINUTUMBOK at PINUPUNA IYON ni WALLACE.

    MALAKING PAGKAKAIBA po IYAN dito kay EHRMAN na PUMIPILI LANG ng SASABIHIN para MABALUKTOT ang KATOTOHANAN at MALOKO ang mga WALANG MALAY.

    Paki CLICK po itong LINK na ITO (Bart Ehrman para MABASA NINYO ang mga EXPOSE NATIN sa BART EHRMAN na IDOL nitong BALIK ISLAM na ITO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    patunay mula sa Bibliya; "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" ang tanong po is Matthew writing the gospel or the book of Matthew? Simple lamang po!

    CENON BIBE:
    SO? ANO po ang TANONG?

    MAGULO po ang ISIP NITONG TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO. Kahit ang PAGTATANONG NIYA ay WALANG DIREKSYON, WALANG PUPUNTAHAN.

    ALAM kasi NIYA na MALI ang mga SINASABI NIYA e. ALAM NIYANG PURO KASINUNGALINGAN ang mga DINADALDAL NIYA.

    E ano kung sinasabi na GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW? Ibig sabihin ba niya ay HINDI SI MATTHEW ang GUMAWA NIYAN?

    BALIKTAD po ang UTAK nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM.

    Kapag sinabing GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW e NANGANGAHULUGAN po IYAN na SI MATTHEW NGA ang MAY GAWA NIYAN, di po ba?

    Kapag po ba sinabi na ang KASULATAN ay ACCORDING TO "YOU," e SINO po ang GUMAWA ng KASULATAN? Si BATMAN?

    HINDI PO. KAYO ang MAY GAWA, di po ba? (Liban na lang kung kayo nga si Batman, di po ba? Hehe)

    NAGPAPAKA-IGNORANTE na lang itong BALIK ISLAM dahil HINDI NA SIYA MAKATAKAS sa NAPASUKAN NIYA.

    Bakit po HINDI na SIYA MAKATAKAS diyan kahit MALIWANAG na PURO MALI ang SINASABI NIYA LABAN sa BIBLIYA at KAY KRISTO?

    Ayon po sa ISKOLAR ng ISLAM na si MUHAMMAD MOHSIN KHAN ay heto raw po ang SABI ng QURAN tungkol sa mga MUSLIM na PIPILI ng IBANG RELIHIYON:

    "But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."

    So, MAUUNAWAAN po NATIN kung BAKIT KAHIT MALING-MALI ang MGA SINASABI nitong BALIK ISLAM laban sa ATIN ay HINDI NIYA IYON MAIWAKSI.

    ReplyDelete
  21. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Read Matthew 9:9 then asked the question? Is Matthew writing Matthew again? the proof is vivid from the Bible its very clear! You dont need to have a second look or think twice perhaps! Its there and its vividly clear!

    CENON BIBE:
    NAGPAULIT-ULIT NA NAMAN po.

    WALA pong MAPATUNAYAN ITONG BALIK ISLAM e.

    WALANG MAIPAKITANG MATIBAY na EBIDENSIYA na HINDI SI MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT ng GOSPEL na NAKAUGNAY sa KANYA.

    Kahit po BASAHIN NATIN ang Mt 9:9 ay HINDI po SINASABI RIYAN na "HINDI SI MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT ng GOSPEL NA ITO."

    WALA po NIYAN.

    MALAKAS LANG ang IMAHINASYON NITONG BALIK ISLAM kaya AKALA NIYA ay PATUNAY IYAN sa MALI NIYANG PANINIWALA.

    KAWAWA po ang KALULUWA NITONG TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO. TINITIYAK NIYA na MAPAPA-IMPIERNO SIYA.

    ReplyDelete
  22. IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD?
    By Ahmed Deedat

    CHAPTER ONE
    WHAT THEY SAY
    CHRISTIANS CONFESS

    Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:

    "Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).

    Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":

    "Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5

    If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!

    1. Out of ignorance.

    2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.

    3. As opposed to the Qur'an.

    4. Another word for Interpolating.

    5. Emphasis are mine.

    6. Indisputable.

    Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."

    ReplyDelete
  23. With this sort of drive, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the "heathen." 1 A theological student — a not-yet-qualified young evangelist — from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence — a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." 3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:

    "... seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)

    Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:



    These pages are now addressed to those sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their hearts.

    1. See "How Lost are the Heathen?" by the same MOODY PRESS of Dr. Scroggie.

    2. When the Christian talks of "witnessing" he means propagating, proselytizng, converting.

    3. This subject is dealt extensively in the book — "CHRIST IN ISLAM"

    ReplyDelete
  24. CHAPTER TWO

    THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT

    PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS

    Whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.

    THE DOGGED QUESTION

    When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments — the inevitable Christian evasion is — "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or "No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient. "Answer — 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!

    The reader will readily agree that things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a "No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.

    1. MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam



    THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE

    We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

    1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."

    2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."

    3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"

    You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:

    ReplyDelete
  25. The FIRST Type:

    (a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

    (b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

    (c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)

    Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.

    The SECOND Type:

    (a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)

    (b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)

    (c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).

    Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

    The THIRD Type:

    "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)

    The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.

    For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!

    ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.

    TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.

    THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!

    The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  26. CHAPTER THREE

    THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
    It will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.

    SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

    Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)

    The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2

    Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.3

    1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur'an is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";

    2- More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."

    3.. Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess — "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."

    What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):

    1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)

    2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)

    3. "... preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)

    The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!

    The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.

    ReplyDelete
  27. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE
    Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.

    The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

    ". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
    (Revelation 22:18-19)

    But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:

    The Book of Judith
    The Book of Tobias
    The Book of Baruch
    The Buck of Esther, etc.

    * This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.

    THE PROTESTANT BIBLE

    Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".

    "THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."

    The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.

    GLOWING TRIBUTES

    ReplyDelete
  28. First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-

    1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)

    2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)

    3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)

    4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)

    The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.

    "THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"

    But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;

    "THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."

    Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:

    "YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. CHAPTER FOUR

    FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)

    The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

    While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.

    As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph

    at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside — is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph — "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.

    * To read the complete article, click here

    I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!

    ReplyDelete
  30. If I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying — "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet — IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!

    This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" — they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)

    We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor — defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.

    1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    (Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

    The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."

    ReplyDelete
  31. BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE

    "Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:

    2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

    (John 3:16 - AV)

    No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.

    The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.

    "CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"

    3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
    the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."

    1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV

    This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Qur'an says:

    * Not one in a trinity. Not one in a trinity.

    THE ASCENSION

    One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity — OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:

    4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God."

    (Mark 16:19)

    4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN."

    (Luke 24:51)

    Now please look at the image below, which is a photo copy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?

    ReplyDelete
  32. From the Chart — "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" — appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES — those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up" into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.

    THE DONKEY CIRCUS

    The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus- Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.
    ". . . and they sat him thereon." (The Donkey)

    (Matt. 21:7)
    ". . . and he sat upon him." (The Donkey)

    (Mark 11:7)
    ". . . and they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey)

    (Luke 19:35)
    ". . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey)

    (John 12:14)

    Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation — going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City — and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?

    ReplyDelete
  33. NOT FOR LONG!

    The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching — THE ASCENSION OF JESUS — had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God in every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was "RESTORED TO THE TEXT."

    It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and "footnotes", otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.

    "MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL COMMITTEES ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.

    "TWO PASSAGES, THE I LONGER ENDING OF MARK (16:9-20) . . . AND LUKE 24:51 ARE RESTORED TO THE TEXT."
    (Preface — Collins' pages vi and vii)

    "Why 'restored'"? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity. (Refer to the earlier example 3). Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOREWORD to their "New World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their way of saying — New Testament).

    ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

    The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel — they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah — but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.

    1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of "Now you see it, now you don’t".

    ReplyDelete
  34. Paki check mo itong link na ito mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    http://www.jamaat.net/bible/BibleIntro.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. Paki check lamang po ang LINK na ito mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    http://www.jamaat.net/bible/BibleIntro.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cenon Bibe;

    WALANG MAIPAKITA ang PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na MAGPAPATUNAY na LITERAL ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS sa Mt12:40.


    Muslim;
    Hahahahahahaha! hindi ko na po alam kong itong si Cenon Bibe ay sadyang Tanga o nagtangatangahan na lamang sa malaking kahihiyang inabot nya sa akin! mga giliw na taga subaybay! Bibliya nya po mismo ang sinusupalpal ko sa kanyang pagmumukha!

    At ito po ay uulitin kong ibalandra sa TAnga nyang Pagmumukha ang mismong sinasabi ni Kristo at Nakasulat sa kanyang bibliya!

    Matthew 12:38, 39 & 40

    38:
    "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee."

    39:
    "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:"

    40:
    "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


    Ito po ang ibinigay na halimbawa ni Kristo mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    Jonah 1:17
    ".... And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

    Napakalinaw po! Hindi po ba nasa Bibliya nya po mismo! at si Kristo po mismo ang may sabi nyan mga giliw na taga sunbaybay! Pero tila kahit na mga salita mismo ni Kristo ay ayaw paniniwalaan nitong Demonyong ito na si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay!Now ngayon sa punto pong iyon gusto ko po na maglitaw naman ng talata itong si Cenon Bibe ayon sa kanyang KATANGAHANG paniniwala na 1 Day & 2 Nights na kong saan sumasalungat sa totoong sinasabi ni Kristo na 3 Days & 3 Nights! Matt 12:40

    Hinahamon po kita Cenon Bibe ilitaw mo ang katangahan mong paniniwala na 1 Day & 2 Nights! Ang pinaniniwalaan ko po na 3 Days & 3 Nights ay hindi ko po sariling salita o unawa, bagkus iyan po ay malinaw na malinaw nating mababasa sa mismong Bibloiya at si Kristo po mismo ang may sabi!

    ReplyDelete
  37. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD?
    By Ahmed Deedat ...

    CENON BIBE:
    SINO? AHMED DEEDAT?

    KWENTISTANG MUSLIM. PURO PALSO ang SINABI LABAN sa BIBLIYA at sa MGA KRISTIYANO.

    SURIIN po NINYO nang HUSTO ang mga SINASABI nitong DEEDAT na ITO at MAKIKITA NINYO na PURO OUT OF CONTEXT at BINALUKTOT.

    ReplyDelete
  38. TINGNAN po NATIN itong "patunay" raw ng KWENTISTANG si AHMED DEEDAT para palabasin na gawa lang ng tao ang BIBLIYA.

    SINIPI NIYA ang sinulat ni Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE.

    Sinabi raw po ni Scroggie sa sagot niya sa tanong na: "Is the Bible the Word of God?"

    "Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).

    Ano po ang KONKLUSYON nitong KWENTISTANG MUSLIM?

    HETO po:
    "If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No!"

    Ang KONKLUSYON po nitong KWENTISTANG MUSLIM ay "hindi salita ng Diyos" ang BIBLIYA dahil sinabi ni Scroggie na "Yes, the Bible is human."

    HINDI na raw KAILANGANG DAGDAGAN pa ang mga sinabi ni Scroggie dahil "malinaw" na raw ang lahat.

    Talaga pong HINDI na PADADAGDAGAN nitong KWENTISTA ng ISLAM ang SINABI ni Scroggie dahil MAKIKITA ng LAHAT na MALI ang UNAWA NIYA sa sinabi ng BIBLE SCHOLAR.

    MAY SINABI po ba si SCROGGIE na "The BIBLE IS NOT the WORD OF GOD?"

    WALA po NIYAN.

    DAGDAG LANG IYAN ng PALAGAWA ng KWENTO na si DEEDAT.

    Katunayan, sa mismong PAMAGAT ng SINULAT ni SCROGGIE ay MAKIKITA po NATIN ang TUNAY NIYANG SINASABI.

    Sabi sa PAMAGAT ng sinulat ni Scroggie: IT [THE BIBLE] IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE.

    Sa Pilipino: "IYON [ang BIBLIYA] ay SA TAO, PERO SA DIYOS DIN."

    NAPAKALINAW po, di po ba?

    Diyan ay kitang-kita natin na SINASABI ni SCROGGIE na ang BIBLIYA ay TUNAY ngang SA DIYOS o SALITA ng DIYOS, pero IYON din ay SA TAO.

    Ano po ang ibig sabihin niyan?

    Bakit po SA DIYOS o SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA?

    Dahil po GALING SA DIYOS ang mga NAKASULAT DIYAN.

    MAKIKITA natin na MISMONG DIYOS ang NAGSALITA o NANGUSAP sa mga PROPETA na SIYANG SINISIPI sa BIBLIYA.

    Halimbawa noong KAUSAPIN ng DIYOS si MOISES sa Exodus 3:14-15.

    Diyan ay MISMONG DIYOS ang NAGBIGAY ng PANGALAN NIYA sa isang TUNAY na PROPETA.

    Ngayon, SA TAO o HUMAN din ang BIBLIYA dahil ISINULAT IYAN GAMIT ang SALITANG KILALA at NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO.

    Halimbawa po, UNANG NASULAT ang SALITA ng DIYOS sa WIKANG HEBREO.

    Bakit HEBREO?

    Dahil po IYON ang WIKANG NAUUNAWAAN ni MOISES at ng mga ISRAELITA.

    Kung ISINULAT IYON sa WIKANG INGLES ay MALAMANG na HINDI IYON NAUNAWAAN ng mga ISRAELITA. MABABALE WALA ang PAGSASALITA ng DIYOS sa TUNAY na PROPETA.

    Sinasabi rin iyan na SA TAO o HUMAN dahil HINAYAAN ng DIYOS na MAGAMIT sa PAGSLAT DIYAN ang mga PAMAMARAAN na NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO, partikular ng mga HEBREO.

    Halimbawa po, GINAMIT ng DIYOS ang mga PAGLALARAWAN na MAY KAUGNAYAN sa PAGPAPASTOL o sa DISYERTO.

    Bakit?

    Dahil noong KAUSAPIN ng DIYOS si MISES ay mga PASTOL ang mga HEBREO at PAMILYAR sa KANILA ang DISYERTO.

    Kung GUMAMIT ang DIYOS ng PAGLALARAWAN na PATUNGKOL sa GUBAT o DAGAT ay MALAMANG na HINDI IYON NAUNAWAAN ng mga HEBREO.

    MATALINO at MARUNONG po ang DIYOS. Para MAUNAWAAN SIYA ay HINAYAAN NIYA na MAGAMIT ang mga SALITANG NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO para MAIPAHAYAG ang KANYANG MGA SALITA.

    Kaya nga po ang BIBLIYA ay sinasabi na WORDS OF GOD WRITTEN in WORDS of MEN.

    Iyan po ang pakahulugan ng sinabi ni Scroggie na The BIBLE is HUMAN, YET DIVINE.

    HINDI po IYAN NAUNAWAAN ni AHMED DEEDAT at SINADYA NIYA na HINDI IYAN MAUNAWAAN dahil MAS PINILI NIYANG MAMUHAY sa KAMALIAN at KABALUKTUTAN.

    HINDI rin IYAN UUNAWAIN nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM dahil GALIT SIYA sa KATOTOHANAN. At tila MAS MASAYA SIYA sa KASINUNGALINGAN at KAMANGMANGAN.

    ReplyDelete
  39. BAKIT po BIGLANG IPINASOK nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM ang PAGSISINUNGALING ni AHMED DEEDAT LABAN sa BIBLIYA?

    Dahil po ba HINDI NIYA MASAGOT kung DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI ng mga NAKALAGAY sa QURAN?

    NAGPAPALUSOT na naman lang po itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO. HINDI KASI MAKASAGOT sa SIMPLENG TANONG NATIN.

    Pero MAGANDA na rin po na NAUNGKAT NIYA IYAN dahil NAILABAS NATIN ang TAMANG PAKAHULUGAN ni SCROGGIE sa ISINULAT NIYA kaugnay sa BIBLIYA bilang "HUMAN, YET DIVINE."

    ReplyDelete
  40. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":

    "Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5

    CENON BIBE:
    NAPAKASIMPLE po NIYAN na HINDI NAINTINDIHAN nitong mga PROPAGANDISTA ng BALIK ISLAM.

    SINASABI po ba RIYAN na HINDI SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA?

    WALA po NIYAN.

    Muli ay MALING KONKLUSYON na naman iyan ng KWENTISTANG MUSLIM.

    TUNAY po na MAY CONDENSATION o PAGPAPAIKLI sa mga NAKASULAT sa BIBLIYA.

    ISIPIN nga po NINYO kung HINDI PINAIKLI ang mga NARIYAN. HINDI MATATAPOS ang BIBLIYA.

    Sabi nga sa John 21:25
    "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

    NAKIKITA po NINYO?

    KINAILANGANG PILIIN ang mga ILALAGAY sa BIBLIYA dahil WALANG PAGLALAGYAN kung ISUSULAT ang LAHAT ng SINABI o GINAWA ng DIYOS.

    Porke po ba PINILI at PINAIKLI ang mga PAGKAKASULAT ay HINDI na IYON SALITA ng DIYOS o HINDI na GALING SA DIYOS?

    HINDI po.

    SALITA pa rin iyon ng DIYOS.

    TAAS NOO po NATING MASASABI at MAIPAHAHAYAG na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY ng mga SALITA na NASA BIBLIYA.

    HINDI po TAYO TULAD NITONG PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na tila HINDI MAIPAGMALAKI na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY ng mga SALITA sa QURAN.

    BAKIT nga ba tila HIYANG-HIYA SIYA?

    Kung NANINIWALA SIYA na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY ng mga NAKASULAT sa QURAN ay DAPAT NIYANG IPAGSIGAWAN IYON sa MUNDO, di po ba?

    ReplyDelete
  41. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."

    CENON BIBE:
    SO? NASAAN po SINABI raw ng DALAWANG BIBLE SCHOLARS na HINDI SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA?

    BAKIT WALANG NAIPAKITA itong KWENTISTANG MUSLIM?

    BAKIT OUT OF CONTEXT na MGA SALITA lang ng 2 BIBLE SCHOLARS ang IBINIGAY NIYA?

    E kasi po, ALAM NIYANG WALANG SINABI ang mga SCHOLAR na HINDI WORD of GOD ang BIBLIYA.

    Sa kabilang dako ay ALAM na ALAM ni DEEDAT na PINATUNAYAN ng mga SCHOLAR na SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA.

    SADYA na lang po TAYONG NILOLOKO at INILILIGAW nitong PROPAGANDISTA ng BALIK ISLAM.

    At KUNG WALA po TAYONG ALAM ay MALAMANG na MALOKO at MAILIGAW TAYO ng mga KWENTISTANG ITO.

    Sabagay, KATUPARAN po IYAN ng SINASABI sa BIBLIYA:

    Matthew 24:4-5, 11, 24
    Jesus said to them in reply, "See that no one deceives you.

    For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah,' and they will deceive many.

    (HINDI po ba NAGPAPANGGAP pang NANINIWALA kay KRISTO nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM?)

    Many false prophets will arise and deceive many;

    (HINDI po ba MARAMING NALOKO itong si AHMED DEEDAT gamit ang OUT OF CONTEXT at BINALUKTOT NIYANG PAKAHULUGAN sa SINASABI ng mga BIBLE SCHOLAR?"

    False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.

    (GAANO KARAMI na po ang NALINLANG ng mga BULAANG PROPETA? KAYO na po ang MAGSABI)


    Sabi rin po sa Romans 16:17-18
    I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.

    For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

    (HINDI po ba PUNO ng PAMBOBOLA at PANLILINLANG itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na KUNWARI ay MAGALANG pa sa INYO at KUNWARI ay SUMUSUNOD kay KRISTO pero INAATAKE si KRISTO at MINAMALIIT ang INYONG PANG-UNAWA?)

    ReplyDelete
  42. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:

    CENON BIBE:
    SALAMAT naman po kung NANINIWALA KAYONG "Holy Book of God" ang Al-Qur'an.

    PUWEDE po ba NINYONG SABIHIN DITO kung MISMONG DIYOS ang NAKIPAG-USAP sa INYONG PROPETA at NAGPAHAYAG ng mga NILALAMAN ng AL-QUR'AN?

    IPAGMALAKI po NINYO ang QUR'AN.

    KAMI pong MGA KRISTIYANO ay IPINAGMAMALAKI na ang BIBLIYA ay TUNAY na SALITA ng DIYOS dahil ALAM na ALAM NAMIN na GALING ITO MISMO sa DIYOS.

    ReplyDelete
  43. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training.

    CENON BIBE:
    WHY DO YOU HESITATE to STATE HERE whether GOD HIMSELF SPOKE to YOUR PROPHET and PERSONALLY GAVE the WORDS in the QUR'AN?

    WHY do you MEDDLE in the BIBLE when YOU CANNOT OPENLY PROCLAIM that the QUR'AN was GIVEN DIRECTLY by GOD?

    WHY? WHY? WHY?

    ReplyDelete
  44. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting from AHMED DEEDAT:
    "The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN."

    (And WHAT is THIS "THIRD KIND" that DEEDAT is REFERRING TO?)

    "the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"

    CENON BIBE:
    BRAVO!!!

    This PROPAGANDIST TESTIFIES that MUCH of WHAT the BIBLE CONTAINS comes from ACTUAL WITNESSES: "eye witnessess or ear witnesses."

    EVEN in COURT, the WORDS of ACTUAL WITNESSES are CREDIBLE ang BELIEVABLE.

    So, EVEN THIS ANTI-CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDIST KNOWS that THE BIBLE is FROM THOSE who ACTUALLY SAW or HEARD GOD'S WORKS and WORDS.

    Now, may we INVITE HIM to OPENLY STATE HERE that THE CONTENTS of the QUR'AN ALSO CAME from ACTUAL WITNESSES?

    They BELIEVE that the QUR'AN are the "WORDS OF GOD."

    Can we ask him to SAY HERE that THE WORDS contained in the QUR'AN were ACTUALLY HEARD FROM GOD?

    I hope he can EDUCATE US on this MATTER so that WE CAN LEARN MORE about the ISLAMIC HOLY BOOK.

    ReplyDelete
  45. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting from AHMED DEEDAT:
    For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!

    ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.

    CENON BIBE:
    So, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US WHICH PARTS of the HOLY QUR'AN were DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY SPOKEN by GOD to YOUR PROPHET?

    Please HELP US UNDERSTAND.

    ReplyDelete
  46. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English),

    CENON BIBE:
    DID I READ it CORRECTLY that GOD DID NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY to YOUR PROPHET?

    WHY IS THAT?

    Is MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT that THE CONTENTS of the QUR'AN DID NOT COME DIRECTLY FROM GOD but were ONLY RELATED to YOUR PROPHET by AN ANGEL?

    Please CLARIFY?

    For our part, WE CAN PROUDLY PROCLAIM that the WORDS in the BIBLE were DIRECTLY GIVEN by GOD to the PROPHETS or to the WITNESSES.

    GOD DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY SPOKE to the TRUE PROPHETS, like when HE GAVE THEM INSTRUCTIONS.

    GOD even BECAME MAN in the PERSON of the LORD JESUS CHRIST to PERSONALLY TEACH the FIRST CHRISTIANS.

    While STILL ON EARTH, GOD HIMSELF FORMED and FOUNDED HIS CHURCH, the BODY of HIS TRUE PEOPLE.

    I hope YOU COULD SHOW US that GOD ALSO DID the SAME THING for YOU MUSLIMS.

    PLEASE EDUCATE US so that WE WOULD UNDERSTAND ISLAM BETTER.

    ReplyDelete
  47. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)

    CENON BIBE:
    "PERFECTLY PRESERVED"?

    IS THIS TRUE?

    Then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN the MANY VERSIONS of the QUR'AN in the ARABIC TEXTS?

    COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN the VARIOUS ARABIC TEXTS?

    By "PERFECTLY PRESERVED"--as your PROPAGANDIST DEEDAT CLAIMS--it should be UNDERSTOOD that THE TEXT SHOULD BE THE VERY SAME TEXT that WAS GIVEN during the TIME of YOUR PROPHET up to THIS TIME. Is that CORRECT?

    BUT HOW COME the CURRECT ARABIC TEXTS of the QUR'AN are ALREADY FULL of DIACRITICAL and OTHER MARKS that WERE NOT PRESENT in the OLDEST KNOWN TEXTS of the QUR'AN?

    WOULDN'T you CALL the ADDITION of DIACRITICAL MARKS as a "TAMPERING" of the ARABIC TEXT?

    IT WOULD APPEAR that AHMED DEEDAT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. Or is HE DELIBERATELY FOOLING US with his CLAIM?

    ReplyDelete
  48. YOU MENTIONED SIR WILLIAM MUIR as saying that the Qur'an has a "pure text."

    HAS MUIR CONVERTED TO ISLAM to PROVE that HE BELIEVED WHAT HE WAS SAYING?

    ReplyDelete
  49. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2

    CENON BIBE:
    COULD you SHOW US WHERE THIS TAURAAT is TODAY?

    WE CHRISTIANS--and even JEWS--have COPIES of the TORAH dating from the EARLY CENTURIES.

    IF DEEDAT'S CLAIM is TRUE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE a TAURAAT that si WRITTEN in ARABIC.

    IS THERE REALLY an ARABIC TAURAAT or is THIS ANOTHER INVENTION of DEEDAT?

    ReplyDelete
  50. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.

    CENON BIBE:
    Again, COULD YOU PRODUCE a COPY of THIS ZABOOR just to PROVE TO US that THERE WAS INDEED ONE that was REVEALED to DAVID?

    IT IS EASY to MAKE CLAIMS but THERE SHOULD BE PROOF to THESE CLAIMS, shouldn't there?

    The CONTENTS of the BIBLE--OLD and NEW--are SUPPORTED by HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

    COULD you SHOW US EVEN ONE PROOF that SUCH a ZABOOR EXISTED?

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...

    ReplyDelete
  51. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
    The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself!

    CENON BIBE:
    I'M SORRY but THIS IS SUCH a STUPID STATEMENT.

    We say a GOSPEL is "ACCORDING TO" to SHOW that THESE WERE MADE by WITNESSES or PEOPLE who TALKED TO WITNESSES.

    THIS PROVES that THE ACCOUNTS in these GOSPELS are CREDIBLE and BELIEVABLE.

    JESUS HIMSELF SAID that WITNESSES will be THE ONES to PROCLAIM HIM to the WORLD.

    Acts 1:8
    [JESUS SAID] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be MY WITNESSES in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

    JESUS DID NOT NEED to MAKE a GOSPEL ACCORDING to HIMSELF because THAT WOULD BE SELF-SERVING.

    WE BELIEVE in JESUS CHRIST because of the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES who ATTEST to the TRUTH of JESUS'S WORDS.

    That MAKES the BIBLE SUPERIOR to OTHER SO-CALLED HOLY BOOKS. IT is a COMPILATION of the TESTIMONIES of WITNESSES.

    CAN this BALIK ISLAM PRODUCE ONE WITNESS that WOULD TESTIFY that GOD INDEED SPOKE TO THEIR PROPHET?

    Or COULD HE PRODUCE ONE WITNESS that would TESTIFY that the "ANGEL JIBRIL" INDEED SPOKE to THEIR PROPHET?

    I HOPE that WE WOULD NOT WAIT IN VAIN for AN ANSWER to OUR QUESTIONS.

    ReplyDelete
  52. THIS BALIK ISLAM MUTTERS about VERSIONS of the BIBLE.

    HE, AGAIN, ONLY PROVES HIS IGNORANCE about THE BIBLE.

    THE BIBLE is HOLY NOT BECAUSE of WHO TRANSLATED or PRINTED IT.

    THE BIBLE is HOLY because GOD IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHOR and SOURCE of ITS CONTENTS.

    BIBLE VERSIONS MAY VARY but THEIR ULTIMATE MESSAGE IS ONE and CLEAR: FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. (John 3:16)

    It is FUNNY that THIS BALIK ISLAM and HIS PROPAGANDIST AHMED DEEDAT INSISTS on TALKING ABOUT the BIBLE when THEY CAN'T EVEN ANSWER some VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS about THE QUR'AN:

    1. DID GOD HIMSELF SPEAK TO THEIR PROPHET TO GIVE HIM the CONTENTS of the QUR'AN?

    2. DID GOD HIMSELF SAY THE WORDS THAT IS IN THE QUR'AN?

    3. WHO WITNESSED GOD SAYING THE VERY WORDS OF THE QUR'AN?

    THESE are QUESTIONS that THEY SHOULD BE ANSWERING instead of THEM TRYING TO DESTROY the BIBLE.

    ReplyDelete
  53. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Hahahahahahaha! hindi ko na po alam kong itong si Cenon Bibe ay sadyang Tanga o nagtangatangahan na lamang sa malaking kahihiyang inabot nya sa akin! mga giliw na taga subaybay! Bibliya nya po mismo ang sinusupalpal ko sa kanyang pagmumukha!

    CENON BIBE:
    ANO po? WALA NA NAMANG MAISAGOT itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM, di po ba?

    HINDI NA NAMAN MAPATUNAYA na LITERAL ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS sa Mt12:40.

    NAGMUMURA NA NAMAN LANG, di po ba?

    Ang NASA KAMALIAN at NAMUMUHAY sa KASINUNGALINGAN ay HINDI MAKAKASAGOT sa NASA KATOTOHANAN.

    PURIHIN si KRISTO! PURIHIN ang DIYOS!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Wala namang kakwenta-kwenta 'yang koran na 'yan eh. Habang ang Biblia punong-puno ng mga Hula na natupad na at natutupad pa rin, ang koran ano? ni wala nga atang propesiyang nakasaad d'yan eh? puro pagpatay kya mga kaanib puro asal-terorista! pweh!

    ReplyDelete
  55. JESUS vs. Mohammed



    Jesus’ name means God is Savior, Immanuel-God with us as our Savior.

    Mohammed's name means praised one

    Jesus - Born about 4 BC. in Bethlehem Born of the Virgin Mary Isa.7:14 had no earthly father Mt.1

    mohammed - Born of Aminah In 570 A.D. in Mecca

    Jesus - Prophesied by more than 300 scriptures for his first coming, fulfilled them all including Deut.18:15

    Mohammed - Muslims believe Mohammed is prophesied as the Comforter. And the prophet of Deut.18:15

    Jesus - Attracted multitudes by His teaching of God affirming the OT. Taught openly to multitudes as one having authority

    Mohammed - Attracted multitudes by his teaching and by the sword forcefully overthrowing the worship of multiple Gods.

    Jesus - Miracles and healing’s were given freely, he healed all kinds of diseases.

    Mohammed - The Koran is his miracle. Did no miracles of healing or delivering people from demons.

    Jesus - Was never married

    Mohammed - Married to at least fifteen wives one of which was only 9 years old at the time.

    Jesus - Lived a sinless life, never once prayed for forgiveness like other sinners, he forgave others.

    Mohammed - Prayed often for forgiveness of his sins as did all the prophets in the OT and NT.

    Jesus - Waged no war, said his kingdom was not of this world so his followers should not fight

    Mohammed - Was a warrior who waged war by fighting or leading in sixty-six battles to spread his message of monotheism

    ReplyDelete
  56. cont... JESUS vs. MOHAMMED

    Jesus - Ordered the death of no one but instead died in place of the guilty.

    Mohammed - Ordered the death of many men and women (the first was a poetess) to promote the message of monotheism

    Jesus - Established a religion of truth, mercy and love even for enemies, invites all to come to him.

    Mohammed - Established a monotheistic belief system,an earthly empire teaching all must obey the teachings of the Koran.

    Jesus - Established a relationship with God and a spiritual kingdom not of this world that will last forever with him as the ruler.

    Mohammed - Established a religion of God being compassionate and merciful to the obedient but there are no guarantees for anyone.

    Jesus - Died by crucifixion for others in Jerusalem at age 33 being innocent of any crime.

    Mohammed - Died in Medina due to effects of pneumonia at age 62

    Jesus - Arose from the dead the third day just like he predicted, emptying His tomb, promises to raise everyone else and judge them.

    Mohammed - Still lingers in his grave awaiting the Day of Judgment by Jesus

    Jesus - Jesus is mentioned in the Quran 97 times

    Mohammed - Mohammed is mentioned in the Quran 25 times

    Jesus - Old Testament predicts His 2nd coming in more Scriptures than his first

    Mohammed - had only self fulfilling prophecy, nothing in the Old Testament predicted his coming.

    Jesus - Over 1,500,000,000 claim to be His followers are known for their dedication, love, and caring for others. Building hospitals feeding the poor and helping to educate people all over the world showing the compassion of God.

    Mohammed - 1 billion are followers who are dedicated, zealous and still use force if necessary against non Muslims in their land where Islam is the countries religion.

    Jesus - Christ prophesied of the end of the age and what it would be like when he comes again. The Old and New Testament will be fulfilled by his 2nd coming.

    Mohammed - There is no teaching on Mohammed coming back again to rule or reign.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Cenon Bibe;
    HINDI po IYAN NAUNAWAAN ni AHMED DEEDAT at SINADYA NIYA na HINDI IYAN MAUNAWAAN dahil MAS PINILI NIYANG MAMUHAY sa KAMALIAN at KABALUKTUTAN.


    Muslim;
    Katulad ng PangGagaGo at Pambabaluktot na ginagawa mo sa Sarili mo Cenon Bibe? na ang Matthew 9:9 ay pilit mong ginaGago ang sarili at pilit mong pinapaniwala ang mga Tao na ito ay Salita mismo ni Matthew?

    paki basa nyo po mga giliw na taga subaybay kong ang Matthew 9:9 ay salita nga ba talaga ito ni Matthew; kayo na po ang bahalang humusga!

    Matt 9:9
    "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him."

    yan po ang pinagpipilitan nitong bugok na si Cenon Bibe na salita daw po mismo ni Matthew!


    Cenon Bibe;
    HINDI rin IYAN UUNAWAIN nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM dahil GALIT SIYA sa KATOTOHANAN. At tila MAS MASAYA SIYA sa KASINUNGALINGAN at KAMANGMANGAN.


    Muslim;
    Eh bakit ikaw anong unawa mo na malinaw na sinasabi ni Kristo at ng Bibliya mo sa Matthew 12:40? Tumugma ka ba sa sinasabi ni Kristo at sa mismong nakasulat ng Bibliya mo ha? Cenon Bibe? Hindi po mga giliw na taga subaybay! dahil ang UNAWA nitong tanga na si Cenon Bibe sa Matthew 12:40 ay 3 Days & 3 Nights ayon sa malinaw na nakasulat at sinasabi mismo ni Kristo, bagkus ang UNAWA at IPINAGDIDIINAN pa nitong bugok na si Cenon Bibe ay 1 Day & 2 Nights at hindi 3 Days & 3 Nights! ngayon UMAAYON po b itong si Cenon Bibe sa sinasabi ni Kristo at sa kanyang Bibliya? mula sa katangahan nyang unawa ng Matt 12:40 mga giliw na taga subaybay? HIndi po!

    Ito po mga giliw na taga subaybay para po sa kalinawan ng Lahat pakibasda po ang nasabing talata;

    Matt 12:40
    "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Is The Bible God's Word

    CHAPTER FIVE

    DAMNING CONFESSIONS

    Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."

    "THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."

    In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."

    DEVELOPED SICKNESS

    The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic licence" in their preaching.



    THE WITNESSES

    The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:

    "IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.

    ReplyDelete
  59. POT-LUCK

    Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:

    "THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX2 HAS BEEN,"

    Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.

    1. New Testament.

    2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."

    ReplyDelete
  60. A PATIENT HEARING

    Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-

    "AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."

    The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.

    In the first five books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:

    • "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."

    • "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."

    • "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."

    • "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ."

    • "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."

    It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.

    MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?

    Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.

    ReplyDelete
  61. CHAPTER SIX

    THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW TESTAMENT"

    WHY "ACCORDING TO?"

    What about the so-called New Testament? 1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — ACCORDING TO ... ACCORDING TO ... (See below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

    "And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)."

    (Matthew 9:9)

    1. The "so-called," because nowhere does the "New Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books!

    Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard — a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?

    ST. MATHEW 9

    Mathew Called

    9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he
    saw a man named Mathew, sitting at the receipt
    of custom: and he saith unto him, follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

    "HE" AND "HIM"
    NOT MATHEW!

    "HE" AND "HIM"

    NOT JOHN!

    ST. JOHN 19

    35. And he that saw it bare record,
    and his record is true: and he knoweth
    that he saith true, that ye might believe.
    ST. JOHN 21

    24. This is the disciple which testifieth
    of these things, and wrote these things:
    and we know that his testimony is true.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The Conclusion

    25. And there are also many other things
    which Jesus did, the which, if they should
    be written every one, I suppose that even
    the world itself could not contain the books
    that should be written. Amen.

    We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here below). Phillips has this to say about its authorship.

    "EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise everytime we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.


    WHOLESALE CRIBBING

    But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?

    Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.

    ReplyDelete
  63. PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING

    Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Qur'an. 1

    This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2 and take pride in it.

    1. See "AL-QURAN — The Miracles of Miracles" (coming soon)

    2. See beginning of chapter one for the full quotation.

    PERVERTED STANDARDS

    Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book1 a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible:

    "WHAT A BOOK IS THE BIBLE IN THE MATTER OF VARIETY OF CONTENTS! . . . WHOLE PAGES ARE TAKEN UP WITH OBSCURE NAMES, AND MORE IS TOLD OF A GENEALOGY THAN OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. STORIES ARE HALF TOLD, AND THE NIGHT FALLS BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE VICTORY LAY. WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING" (in the Religious Literature of the world) "TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole" on Juliet's lip!

    1. "Is the Bible the Word of God?" by the Moody Press. by the Moody Press.

    ReplyDelete
  64. NOTHING LESS THAN 100%

    To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject "Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.

    Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, readingly slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused — "Yeh!", "Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (See below)

    In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.

    Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See later on for a reproduction from the RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author — UNKNOWN!" They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God — Heaven forbid!

    ReplyDelete
  65. 100% PLAGARISM

    II KINGS 19


    ISAIAH 37

    AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.
    2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the 'elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.
    3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy : for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.
    5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.
    10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah, saying. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying. Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.
    11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?
    12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Ha-ran. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Thel'-a-sar?
    14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter of the hand of the messengers. and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord;
    15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed before the lord, and said. O lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cher'-u-bims. thou art the God. even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth.

    36 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.
    37 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in the house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lech and Sha-re'-zer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into (he land of Armenia. And E-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.
    AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.
    2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.
    3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.
    5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.
    10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah. saying. Let not thy God. in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saving, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.
    11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shall thou be delivered?
    12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Har-an. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Te-las'-sar?
    14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord.
    15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed unto the lord, saying,
    16 O lord of hosts. God of Israel. that dwellest between the cher'-u-bims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.
    37 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned. and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.
    38 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in thc_house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lecb and Sha-rc'-zcr his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and E'-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.

    These verses are culled from the Authorised Version, but you will find the same in every Version.

    ReplyDelete
  66. NO VERBAL INSPIRATION

    (For a complete list of all the books of the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" R.S.V. 'with' its annotations). What have Christian scholars to say about the "Book of Isaiah?" They say: "MAINLY CREDITED TO ISAIAH. PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OTHERS" In view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible" So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of God — the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God's Word!"

    ReplyDelete
  67. CHAPTER SEVEN

    THE ACID TEST

    How do we know that a book claimed to be from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests, is — that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being MUST be consistent with itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is exactly what the LAST TESTAMENT, the Book of God says:

    GOD OR THE DEVIL?

    If God Almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (The Holy Qur-an) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary.

    A classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only "yesterday" The Anglican synod was in session in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue — English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the Editor of an English daily — "The Natal Mercury" dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had created among his own learned clergy:

    ReplyDelete
  68. "ARCHBISHOP BURNETTS REMARKS AT THE SYNOD WERE HARDLY A MODEL OF CLARITY AND WERE WIDELY AND DRAMATICALLY MISINTERPRETED BY MANY OF THOSE PRESENT."

    There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The "bread" in his Holy Communion is not "bread" but "flesh?" The "wine" is "blood?" "Three is one?" and "Human is Divine?" But don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it.

    The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below.

    II SAMUEL 24

    The Numbering

    AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
    While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.

    I CHRONICLES 21

    The Numbering

    AND SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

    Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

    You will observe that the authors of the books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? The author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "LORD" God who MOVED (RSV: "incited") David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was "SATAN" who PROVOKED (RSV: "incited") David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" Is it God or is it Satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD? I am not talking about "Satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-Christians worship the Devil. Christianity has been most prolific of spawning isms. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to?

    The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN" (From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal under the heading: "THE BIBLE — World's Most Controversial Book." (July 1975).

    ReplyDelete
  69. WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORS?

    As further evidence will be adduced from "Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books' incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:

    (a) SAMUEL: Author "Unknown" (Just one word)

    (b) CHRONICLES: Author "Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra."

    We must admire the humility of these Bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys" and "likelys" are always construed as ACTUALLY'S by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?

    WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?

    II SAMUEL 24:13

    13.So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee?

    I CHRONICLES 21:11

    11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
    12. Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

    If God is the Author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?


    THREE OR SEVEN?

    Note the reproduction of above. Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — "So Gad came to David, AND TOLD HIM, and said unto him . . ." These words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant "AND TOLD HIM" is removed! But while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "SEVEN" years to "THREE" years. What did God say to Gad — Three or Seven years plague — "on both your houses?"

    EIGHT OR EIGHTEEN?

    See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that JEHOIACHIN was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown" author of KINGS must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make JEHOIACHIN mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add TEN years to age and deduct TEN days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?

    ReplyDelete
  70. HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN? 8 OR 18?

    Between Eight and Eighteen years, there is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the all-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference between 8 and 18? If we are to believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then the Dignity and Status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!

    II CHRONICLES 36

    9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

    II KINGS 24

    8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

    CAVALRY OR INFANTRY?

    Compare the two quotations on page 40. How many chariot riders did David slay? Seven hundred or seven thousand? And further, did he slay 40000 "HORSEMEN" or 40000 "FOOTMEN?" The implication in the conflicting records between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that He could not even distinguish "CAVALRY" from "INFANTRY!" It is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the Christian dictionary as "inspiration!"

    700 or 7 000?

    It is certainly naught for Bible-lovers' comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7 000, thus making the confused Biblical Mathematics even more confounded!*

    II SAMUEL 10

    18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

    I CHRONICLES 19

    18. But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

    * The remarks on the Zero will be discussed soon.

    GOD CONFUSED BETWEEN "CAVALRY" AND "INFANTRY" ?

    As for the "inspired writers" of the Bible not knowing the difference between "footmen" and "horsemen," is all the more serious because God himself here stands accused, as a source of that "inspiration" for not knowing the difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that these "creatures" had suddenly stepped out of Classical Mythology to bemuse the all too gullible authors.

    ReplyDelete
  71. PRACTICAL HOMEWORK

    Solomon is his glory began building a royal palace for himself which took him thirteen years. We learn this from the 1st Book of Kings, chapter 7. You remember Dr. Parker's boast (earlier on) about "whole pages being taken up by obscure names?" Well, for sheer puerility you cannot beat this chapter 7 and Ezekiel chapter 45. You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will really appreciate the Holy Qur'an!. Reproduced below, you will read the passages for your boring pleasure. Obtain your own Bible and colour code it for easy reference. You may colour the various references from this booklet in your Bible: "Yellow" for all contradictions; use "Red" for pornographic passages; and "Green" for sensible, acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay — that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God and His Holy Messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way! "IF WE PERSPIRE MORE IN TIMES OF PEACE, WE WILL BLEED LESS IN TIMES OF WAR." (Chiang Kai-Shek)

    GOD, AS BUILDER, ENGINEER AND CRAFTSMAN (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ
    THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
    7 But Solomon took "thirteen years to build his own house; so he finished all his house. 2Chr 8:1 2. He also built the "House of the Forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, with four rows of cedar pillars, and cedar beams on the pillars. 2 Chr 9:16 • About 150 feet
    3. And it was paneled with cedar above the beams that were on forty-five pillars, fifteen to a row.
    4. There were windows with beveled frames in three rows, and window was opposite window in three tiers.
    5. And all the doorways and doorposts had rectangular frames; and window was opposite window in three tiers.
    6. He also made the Hall of Pillars: its length was fifty cubits, and its width thirty cubits; and in front of them was a portico with pillars, and a canopy was in front of them.
    7. Then he made a hall for the throne, the Hall of Judgment. where he might judge; and it was paneled with cedar from floor to
    ceiling. Lit. floor of the upper level
    8. And the house where he dwelt had another court inside the hall, of like workmanship. Solomon also made a house like this hall for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken as wife. 9. All these were of costly stones hewn to size, trimmed with saws. inside and out. from the foundation to the eaves, and also on the outside to the great court.
    10. The foundation was of costly stones, large stones, some ten cubits and some eight cubits.
    11. And above were costly stones, hewn to size, and cedar wood.
    12. The great court was enclosed with three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams. So were the inner court of the house of the lord "and the vestibule Of the temple. 1 Kin. 6:36 * John 10:23
    13 Now King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre.
    14. "He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and "his father was a man of Tyre, a bronze worker; he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill in working with all kinds of bronze work. So he came to King Solomon and did all his work. 2 Chr. 2:14 • 2 Chr. 4:16
    15. And he cast "two pillars of bronze, each one eighteen cubits high, and a line of twelve cubits measured the circumference of each.
    Fashioned • Jer 52:21
    16. Then he made two capitals of cast bronze, to set on the tops of the pillars. The height of one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits.

    ReplyDelete
  72. GOD, AS LAND SURVEYOR AND ARCHITECT (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ
    THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
    45 "Moreover, when you "divide the land by lot into inheritance, you shall set apart a district for the lord, a holy portion of the land; its length shall be twenty-five thousand cubits, and the width ten thousand. It shall be holy throughout its territory all around. Ezek 47:22 - Ezek 48:8,9
    2. "Of this there shall be a square plot for the sanctuary, "five hundred by five hundred rods, with fifty cubits around it for an open space. Ezek. 42.20
    3. "So this is the district you shall measure: twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide; in it shall be the sanctuary. The Most Holy Place.
    4 "It shall be a holy portion of the land, belonging to the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to the lord; it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. Ezek. 48:10.11
    5. "An area twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide shall belong to the Levites, the ministers of the temple; they shall have twenty chambers as a possession.
    6. "You shall appoint as the property of the city an area five thousand cubits wide and twenty-five thousand long, adjacent to the district of the holy portion; it shall belong to the whole house of Israel. Ezek. 48:25 7. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border. Ezek. 48:21
    8. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes."
    Ezek 22:27
    9. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.
    10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:36
    11. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.
    12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:13
    13. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ezek. 48:21
    8. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes."
    Ezek 22:27
    9. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.
    10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:36
    11. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.
    12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:13
    13. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.

    HOW HYGIENIC?
    Now, look below and note that the author of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2 000 baths in Solomon's palace, but the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50% to 3 000! What extravagance and error in the "Book of God?" Even if God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy Himself "inspiring" such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the Bible God's Book? Is it the Word of God?

    THE DIFFERENCE 2 000 and 3 000 IS ONLY 50% EXAGGERATION!

    I KINGS 7

    26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths..

    II CHRONICLES 4

    5. And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Whether it is witting or unwitting, the "inspired" writer's singular inability to grasp the difference between 2 000 and 3 000 is unforgivable. It is an obvious contradiction. "AND NO MIRACLE WOULD PROVE THAT TWO AND TWO MAKES FIVE, OR THAT A CIRCLE HAS FOUR ANGELS; AND NO MIRACLES, HOWEVER NUMEROUS COULD REMOVE A CONTRADICTION WHICH LIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE TEACHINGS AND RECORDS OF CHRISTIANITY." — (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In Search of the Historical Jesus." Page 22.

    PILED CONTRADICTIONS

    Before I conclude this series of contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of others in the Bible. See below. It is Solomon again. He really does things in a big way. The ex-Shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! The author of 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than the number of baths he had given him. "And Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls for horses ..." But the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon's stalls by 1 000% — from 4 000 to 40000 stalls of horses! Before some glib evangelist draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero — "0"; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4 000 to make it 40 000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero — "O"! It was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals. Our Question is — Who was the real author of this staggering discrepency of 36000? Was it God or man? You will find these references and many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book — "THE BIBLE — Word of God or Word of Man?" by A. S. K. Joommal.

    II CHRONICLES

    CHAPTER 9

    25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

    I KINGS

    CHAPTER 4

    26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

    The Difference between 4 thousand
    and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
    The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)

    ReplyDelete
  75. CHAPTER EIGHT

    MOST OBJECTIVE TESTIMONY

    The Christian propagandist is very fond of quoting the following verse as proof that his Bible is the Word of God.

    "All scripture IS given by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16 — AV by Scofield)

    Note the "IS’s" in capitals. Rev. Scofield is telling us silently that they do not occur in the original Greek. "THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE," translated by a committee representing the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Union, the Presbyterian Church of England, etc., etc., and the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY has produced the closest translation of the original Greek which deserves to be reproduced here:

    "EVERY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE HAS ITS USE FOR TEACHING THE TRUTH AND REFUTING ERROR, OR FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND DISCIPLINE IN RIGHT LIVING." (2 Timothy 3:16)

    The Roman Catholics in their "Douay" Version, are also more faithful to the text than the Protestants in their Authorised Version (AV). They say: "ALL SCRIPTURE, INSPIRED OF GOD, IS PROFITABLE TO TEACH, TO REPROVE, TO CORRECT . . ."

    We will not quibble with words. Muslims and Christians are agreed that whatever emanates from God, whether through in inspiration or by revelation, must serve one of four purposes:-

    1. It must either teach us DOCTRINE;

    2. REPROVE us for our error;

    3. Offer us CORRECTION;

    4. Guide us into RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    I have been asking learned men of Christianity for the past forty years, whether they can supply a FIFTH "peg" to hang the Word of God on. They have failed signally. That does not mean that I have improved upon their performance. Let us examine the "Holy Bible" with these objective tests.

    NOT FAR TO SEEK

    The very first book of the Bible — Genesis — provides us with many beautiful examples. Open chapter 38 and read. We are given here the history1 of Judah, the father of the Jewish race, from whom we derive the names "judea" and "Judaism." This patriarch of the Jews got married and God granted him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. When the first-born was big enough, Judah had him married to a lady called Tamar. "BUT ER, JUDAH'S FIRST-BORN WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD; AND THE LORD SLEW HIM.'' (Genesis 38:7). Under what heading, from the above four principles of Timothy will you place this sad news? The second — "REPROVE" is the answer. Er was wicked so God killed him. A lesson for all, God will destroy us for our wickedness. REPROOF!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Continuing with this Jewish history, according to their custom, if a brother died and left no offspring, it was the duty of the other brother to give "seed" to his sisters-in-law so that the deceased's name might be perpetuated. Judah, in honour of this custom, orders his second son Onan to do his duty. But Jealousy enters his heart. It will be his seed but the name will be his brother's! So at the critical moment "HE SPILLED IT ON THE GROUND . . . AND THE THING HE DID DISPLEASED THE LORD: WHEREFORE HE SLEW HIM ALSO." (Genesis 38:9-10). Again, where does this slaying fit into Timothy's tests? "REPROOF!" is the answer again. No prizes are offered for these easy answers. They are so basic. Do wrong and bear the consequence! Onan is forgotten in the "Book of God," but Christian sexologists have immortalized him by referring to "coitus interruptus," as Onanism2 in their "Books of Sex."

    Now Judah tells his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to return to her father's house until his third son Shelah attains manhood, when she will be brought back so that he can do his duty.

    1. You remember Dr. Kenneth Cragg in his "Call of the Minaret" and his "HISTORY." See full quotation on page one. This is that "history."

    2. "ONANISM:" Now immortalized in the Oxford Dictionary.

    A WOMAN'S REVENGE

    Shelah grows up and is, perhaps, married to another woman. But Judah had not fulfilled his obligation to Tamar. Deep in his heart he is terrified. He has already lost two sons on account of this "witch," — "LEST PERADVENTURE HE (Shelah) DIE ALSO, AS HIS BRETHERN DID." (Genesis 38:11). So Judah conveniently forgets his promise. The aggrieved young lady resolves to take revenge on her father-in-law for depriving her of her "seed" right. Tamar learned that Judah is going to Timnath to sheer his sheep. She plans to get even with him on the way. She forestalls him, and goes and sits in an open place en route to Timnath. When Judah sees her, he thinks she is a harlot because she has covered her face. He comes up to her and proposes — "ALLOW ME TO COME IN UNTO THEE; AND SHE SAID WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, THAT THOU MAYEST COME IN UNTO ME?" He promises that he would send her a goat kid from his flock. What guarantee could she have that he would send it? What guarantee did she require, Judah queried. "His ring, his bracelet and his staff" is the ready answer. The old man hands these possessions to her, and "CAME IN UNTO HER, AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM." (Genesis 38:16-18).

    THE MORAL LESSON

    Before we seek the heading from Timothy 3:16, under which to categorize this filthy, dirty story from the "Book of God," I am tempted to ask, as you would be tempted to ask: what is the moral (?) lesson that our children will learn from Tamar's sweet revenge? Of course we do tell our children, fables, not really for their entertainment value, but that through them some moral may be imparted."The Fox and the Grapes,'' "The Wolf and the Lamb,'' "The Dog and his Shadow," etc. However simple or silly the story, a moral is aimed at.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 'CHRISTIAN PARENTAL DILEMMAS'

    Dr. Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of repute, carried out experiments on groups of schoolchildren to whom certain stories had been told. The heroes of the stories were the same in the case of the different groups of children, but the heroes behaved contradictorily to each group. To one group "St. George," slaving the dragon emerged a very brave figure, but to another group, fleeing in terror and seeking shelter in his mother's lap. "THESE STORIES MADE CERTAIN SLIGHT BUT PERMANENT CHANGES IN CHARACTER, EVEN IN THE NARROW CLASSROOM SITUATION,'' concluded Dr. Jones.

    How much more permanent damage the rapes and murders, incests and beastialities of the "Holy Bible" has done to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder, then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages between HOMOSEXUALS in their "Houses of God." And 8000 "gays" (an euphemistic term for sodomites) parade their "wares" in London's Hyde Park in July 1979, to the acclaim of the news and TV media. 1

    You must get that "Holy Bible" and read the whole chapter 38 of Genesis. Mark in "red" the words and phrases deserving this adornment. We had reached verse 18 in our moral (?) lesson — "AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM."

    1. Ever since then, the major cities of the Western World; be it London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Paris etc hold annual gay parades (Mardi Gras), with now, public turnouts bringing in children as spectators. Australia, prides itself in having Sydney being declared the gay capital of the world.

    CAN'T HIDE FOR EVER

    Three months later, as things were bound to turn out, news reached Judah that his daughter-in-law, Tamar, had played the "harlot" and that she was with "CHILD BY WHOREDOM AND JUDAH SAID, BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT." (Genesis 38:24). Judah had deliberately spurned her as a "witch" and now he sadistically wants to burn her. But this wiley Jewess was one up on the old man. She sent the "ring," the "bracelet," and the "staff'' with a servant, beseeching her father-in-law to find the culprit responsible for her pregnancy. Judah was in a fix. He confessed that his daughter-in-law was more "RIGHTEOUS" than himself, and "HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE." (verse 26). It is quite an experience to compare the choice of language in which the different Versions describe the same incident. The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "New World Translation" translate the last quotation as — "HE HAD NO FURTHER INTERCOURSE WITH HER AFTER THAT." 1 This is not the last we will hear about in the "Book of God" of this Tamar whom the Gospel writers have immortalized in their "Genealogy of their Lord."

    1. The Jehovah's Witness Version is more explicit in its choice of words. It does not hesitate to call a spade a spade! Compare Ezekiel 23 with any other Version, and see the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  78. INCEST HONOURED

    I do not want to bore you with details, but the end verses of Genesis 38 deal with a duel in Tamar's womb: about the twins struggling for ascendancy. The Jews were very meticulous about recording their "first borns." The first born got the lion's share of their father's patrimony. Who are the lucky winners in this prenatal race? There are four in this unique contest. They are "PHAREZ and ZARAH of TAMAR by JUDAH.'' How? You will see presently. But first, let us have the moral. What is the moral in this episode? You remember Er and Onan: how God destroyed them for their several sins? And the lessons we have learnt in each case was "REPROOF'' Under what category of Timothy will you place the incest of Judah, and his illegitimate progeny? All these characters are honoured in the "Book of God" for their bastardy. They become the great grandfathers and great grandmothers of the "only begotten son of God'(?) See Matthew 1:3. In every Version of the Bible, the Christians have varied the spelling of these characters' names from those obtained in the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 38) with those contained in the New Testament (Matthew chapter 1) to put the reader off the scent. From PHAREZ in the "Old" to PARES in the "New,'' and ZARAH to ZARA and TAMAR to THAMAR, But what about the moral? God blesses Judah for his incestuous crime! So if you do "evil" (Er), God will slay you; if you spill "seed" (Onan), God will kill you, but a daughter-in-law (Lamat) who vengefully and guilefully collect her father-in-law's (Judah's) "seed" is rewarded. Under what category will the Christians place this "honour" in the "Book of God?" Where does it fit? Is it Your ...

    1. DOCTRINE?

    2. REPROOF?

    3. CORRECTION? or

    4. INSTRUCTION INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?

    Ask him who comes and knocks at your door — that professional preacher, that hot-gospeller, that Bible-thumper. Here, he deserves a prize if he can grant an explanation for the correct answer. There is none born who can justify this filth, this pornography under any of the above headings. But a heading has to be given. It can only be recorded under — "PORNOGRAPHY!"

    ReplyDelete
  79. BAN THE BOOK!
    George Bernard Shaw said that "THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (the Bible) ON EARTH, KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY." Keep the Bible out of your children's reach. But who will follow his advice? He was not a "B.A., 1 a "reborn" Christian.
    According to the high moral scruples of the Christian rulers of South African, who have banned the book, "Lady Chatterley's Lover,'' because of a "tetragrammaton" — a four-letter word, they would most assuredly have placed a ban on the "Holy Bible" if it had been a Hindu religious Book, or a Muslim religious Book. But they are utterly helpless against their own "Holy Book," their "SALVATION" depends upon it!
    Reading Bible stories to children
    can also open up all sorts of
    opportunities to discuss the
    morality of sex. An unexpurgated
    Bible might get an X-rating from
    some censors,

    The PLAIN TRUTH October 1977
    1. "B.A." short for "born again" it is a new sickness. It destroyed the "SUICIDE CULT" of Rev. Jim Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana.

    DAUGHTERS SEDUCE THEIR FATHER
    Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end and mark again in "red" the words and phrases deserving this honour. Do not hesitate and procrastinate. Your "coloured" Bible will become a priceless heirloom for your children. I agree with Shaw, to keep the Bible "under lock and key,'' but we need this weapon to meet the Christian challenge. The Prophet of Islam said that "WAR IS STRATEGY,'' and strategy demands that we use the weapons of our enemy. It is not what we like and what we do not like. It is what we are forced to use against the "ONE BOOK" (Bible) professors, who are knocking at our doors with "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that." They want us to exchange our Holy Qur'an for their "Holy Bible." Show them the holes in the "holiness" which they have not yet seen. At times these zombies pretend to see the filth for the first time. They have been programmed with selected verses for their propagation.

    To continue: the "history" has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed." "Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the "Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly — men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or "meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy 2:19)

    No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!

    Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. You will know what colour to choose. The "whoredoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth certainly has no place in any "Book of God."

    Al-Haj A.D. Ajijola in his book — "The Myth of the Cross" gives a masterly expose of the fallacy of the Bible as well as of the crucifixion, in short, of the whole of Christianity. No student of comparative religion can afford to be without this publication and "THE BIBLE: Word of God or Word of Man?" mentioned earlier on.

    ReplyDelete
  80. CHAPTER NINE

    THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS

    Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations. 1

    1. "The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation." (Deut. 23:2 — AV). The "Witnesses" have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat!

    IGNOBLE ANCESTRY

    Why should God give a "father" (Joseph) to His "son" (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? "This is the whole beauty of it" says the pervert. "God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His 'son. "

    ONLY TWO COMMISSIONED

    Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?

    GENEALOGY FROM DAVID TO JESUS

    ReplyDelete
  81. FULFILLING PROPHECY?
    Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.

    Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynaecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

    BREAKING PREJUDICE

    As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.

    We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some "inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his "revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.

    In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM." Perhaps another 2000 years?!

    "THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS" "The Plain Truth," July 1975.

    ReplyDelete
  82. THE SOURCE OF LUKE'S "INSPIRATION"

    We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q''’. 1 Let us now allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See below for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.

    FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to
    set forth in order a declaration of those things
    which are most surely believed among us,
    2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which
    from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
    ministers of the word;
    3. It seemed good to me also, having had
    perfect understanding of all things from the very
    first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
    Theophilus,
    4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those
    things, wherein thou has been instructed. to
    set forth in order a declaration of those things
    which are most surely believed among us,
    2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which
    from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
    ministers of the word;
    3. It seemed good to me also, having had
    perfect understanding of all things from the very
    first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
    Theophilus,
    4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those
    things, wherein thou has been instructed.

    Luke 1:1-4

    In the introduction to his translation of the "Gospel of St Luke" A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say — "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God?! Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English" in soft cover by 'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the "Preface" 2 from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!

    1. Refer to Chapter Six.

    2. Refer to Chapter Three.

    THE REMAINING GOSPEL

    Who is the author of "The Gospel of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?) says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 — John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D, his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "last Super," the one that "Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.

    WATCH THE PRONOUNS!

    ST. JOHN 19

    35. And he that saw it bare record,
    and his record is true: and he knoweth
    that he saith true, that ye might believe.

    WHO IS "HE" AND "HIS"?

    ST. JOHN 21

    24. This is the disciple which testifieth
    of these things, and wrote these things:
    and we know that his testimony is true.

    WHO IS "WE"?

    ReplyDelete
  83. The Conclusion

    25. And there are also many other things
    which Jesus did, the which, if they should
    be written every one, I suppose that even
    the world itself could not contain the books
    that should be written. Amen. WHAT AN EXAGGERATION!

    WHO IS "I"?

    AUTHORS IN A NUTSHELL

    Let me conclude this "authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We start with "GENESIS" — the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas — " " This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say — that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.

    The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses."
    This is the same category as the book of Genesis.

    Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."

    Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."

    Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND

    Who is the author of:

    1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"

    2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"

    1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"

    2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"

    1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"

    2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"


    THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
    GENESIS

    AUTHOR One of the "five
    books of Moses."

    EXODUS
    AUTHOR Generally
    credited to Moses.

    LEVITICUS
    AUTHOR Generally
    credited to Moses.

    NUMBERS
    AUTHOR Generally
    credited to Moses.

    DEUTERONOMY
    AUTHOR Generally
    credited to Moses.

    JOSHUA
    AUTHOR. Major part
    credited to Joshua.

    JUDGES
    AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,

    RUTH
    AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.

    FIRST SAMUEL
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    SECOND SAMUEL
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    FIRST KINGS
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    SECOND KINGS
    AUTHOR. Unknown.
    FIRST CHRONICLES
    AUTHOR. Unknown,
    probably collected and
    edited by Ezra.

    SECOND CHRONICLES
    AUTHOR. Likely collected
    and edited by Ezra.

    EZRA
    AUTHOR. Probably written
    or edited by Ezra.

    ESTHER
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    JOB
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    PSALMS
    AUTHOR. Principally David,
    though there are other writers.

    ECCLESIASTES
    AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
    commonly assigned to Solomon.

    ISAIAH
    AUTHOR. Mainly credited
    to Isaiah. Parts may have been
    written by others.

    JONAH
    AUTHOR. Unknown.

    HABAKKUK
    AUTHOR. Nothing known of
    the place or time of his birth.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.

    And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-

    We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Qur'anic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject — "Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished.2Allowing believing Christians, "reborn" Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their "better" judgement.

    What about the Holy Qur'an? Is the Qur'an the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN — The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request.

    1. "THE BIBLE" - "The World's Best Seller!" the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first edition alone' "What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!"

    2. See Dr Scroggie's plea in chapter 5.

    EPILOGUE

    The reader must by now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity.

    For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.

    Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.

    EARLY PROVOCATION

    It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Qur'an.

    Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind— Muhummed P.B.U.H.

    I resolved to study the Qur'an, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book — "IZHARUL HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.

    ReplyDelete
  85. MUSLIMS UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK

    It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.

    Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians.

    My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H).

    ATTACK NOT NEW

    Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.

    One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ". This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading — "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION."

    "WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.

    1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Qur'an. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?

    2. That our Gospels have suffered corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect right to ask them;

    (a) Was such corruption or alteration intentional?

    (b) Can you point out in my Bible one such passage?

    (c) How did this passage read originally?

    (d) When, by whom, how or why was it corrupted or altered?

    (e) Was such, corruption of the text or of the meaning?

    3. That our Gospels are "faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that our Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus. A little questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually existed in the past or exists today.

    BEFORE GOING ON TO THE LATTER HALF OF THIS DISCUSSION, A REMINDER IS IMPORTANT THAT AS SOON AS THE OBJECTOR IS WILLING TO SENSE THE FLIMSINESS OF SUCH A CHARGE WE SHOULD PRESS HOME SOME TEACHING FROM OUR SCRIPIURES, THAT OUR EFFORT MAY BE POSITIVE AND NOT NEGATIVE."

    HAVE MUSLIMS THE ANSWER?

    Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  86. MUSLIMS CHALLENGED

    On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:

    "In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defence of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE MOSLEM." 1

    Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly asked for, I have been able to win the day.

    Remember, we Muslims do not go door to door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to harass the unwary Musalman.

    Those who are afraid to project the truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re-examine their Eemaan.

    The lectures I hold are to sound out these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.

    The lectures are also aimed at restoring the damaged dignity of the Muslim who has been ruffled by the ruthless attacks of the Christian pedlar. Ask the poor Muslims of Chatsworth, Hanover Park or Riverlea2 as to how they are subjected to the tyrany of certain missionaries.

    If this humble little contribution of mine "Is the Bible God's Word?" finds a place in the Muslim home as a bulwark against the missionary menace my effort would be amply rewarded.

    A greater reward would be if even one sincere disciple of Jesus (on whom be peace) were to be led to the truth and be removed from fabrications and falsehood.

    The greatest reward of course lies with Allah Almighty whom I supplicate for guidance and mercy and pray and crave that He accepts my effort which I dedicate to Him in all humility.

    1. Alhamdo-lillah! (Praise be to Allah), the reader will agree that in this and our other publications listed on the back cover (MAIN PAGE), we have been constantly meeting this Christian challenge. (Praise be to Allah), the reader will agree that in this and our other publications listed on the back cover (MAIN PAGE), we have been constantly meeting this Christian challenge.

    2. These are Just a couple of the many townships in which the poorer Muslim is made to live by law under the South African "Group Areas Act"

    ReplyDelete
  87. Muslim said..
    "Katulad ng PangGagaGo at Pambabaluktot na ginagawa mo sa Sarili mo Cenon Bibe? na ang Matthew 9:9 ay pilit mong ginaGago ang sarili at pilit mong pinapaniwala ang mga Tao na ito ay Salita mismo ni Matthew?"

    Ganito pala makipagtalo ang isang muslim.
    Mababaho at masasamang salita ang lumalabas
    sa kanyang bibig.
    For your information hindi lang si Bro.Cenon
    ang naniniwala na si Matthew ang nagsulat ng gospel according to matthew.
    Ang ginagamit mong proof na di si Matthew nagsulat nun ay yung 9:9?
    Ang babaw at walang kwenta ang argumento mo dahil di mo naman alam kung anong form of narration ang ginamit.
    Napapatunayan mo lang sa aming katoliko na wala kayong alam sa Bibliya naming katoliko dahil wala sa inyo ang Espiritu Santo na siyang gagabay sa pagunawa ng Bibliya.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Muslim said...
    In the following pages of her commentary,
    mrs.White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAS ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE"(from what?) YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGE THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."

    If you are a wise person would you believe such claim without any PROOF?
    What is the proof here of mrs. white? NOTHING!!! so how can we consider such claim
    that the content of the bible were change by learned men?
    This is just another make up story to destroy the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  89. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Katulad ng PangGagaGo at Pambabaluktot na ginagawa mo sa Sarili mo Cenon Bibe? na ang Matthew 9:9 ay pilit mong ginaGago ang sarili at pilit mong pinapaniwala ang mga Tao na ito ay Salita mismo ni Matthew?

    paki basa nyo po mga giliw na taga subaybay kong ang Matthew 9:9 ay salita nga ba talaga ito ni Matthew; kayo na po ang bahalang humusga!

    Matt 9:9
    "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him."

    CENON BIBE:
    ITURO MO na KUNG SAAN SINABI RIYAN na HINDI SI MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT DIYAN.

    WALA kang MAIPAKITA, di ba?

    HINDI mo RIN MATUTULAN na GINAMIT DIYAN ang THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE na AYON MISMO SA IYO ay PUWEDENG GAMITN ng NAGSASALITA.

    WALA KA TALAGA.

    ReplyDelete
  90. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Eh bakit ikaw anong unawa mo na malinaw na sinasabi ni Kristo at ng Bibliya mo sa Matthew 12:40? Tumugma ka ba sa sinasabi ni Kristo at sa mismong nakasulat ng Bibliya mo ha? Cenon Bibe?

    CENON BIBE:
    MALINAW?

    ASAN ang MALINAW na LITERAL IYAN?

    PAULIT-ULIT KA NA LANG. WALA KA NAMANG MAPATUNAYAN.

    Kaya MARAMI ang AYAW KAYONG PANSININ e. MAHIHINA ang ULO NINYO. SAYANG lang daw ang ORAS sa INYO. Hehe

    ReplyDelete
  91. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Hindi po mga giliw na taga subaybay! dahil ang UNAWA nitong tanga na si Cenon Bibe sa Matthew 12:40 ay 3 Days & 3 Nights ayon sa malinaw na nakasulat at sinasabi mismo ni Kristo, bagkus ang UNAWA at IPINAGDIDIINAN pa nitong bugok na si Cenon Bibe ay 1 Day & 2 Nights at hindi 3 Days & 3 Nights! ngayon UMAAYON po b itong si Cenon Bibe sa sinasabi ni Kristo at sa kanyang Bibliya? mula sa katangahan nyang unawa ng Matt 12:40 mga giliw na taga subaybay? HIndi po!

    CENON BIBE:
    OUT OF CONTEXT KA KASI. LAGI NAMAN E, di ba?

    IISANG TALATA ang NABASA MO AKALA MO e LITERAL NA ang 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS.

    Kapag ba nag-BALIK ISLAM e HUMIHINA ang UTAK o kaya nag-BALIK ISLAM e dahil MAHINA ang UTAK?

    ALIN sa DALAWA?

    DALDAL po nang DALDAL itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO WALA NAMANG MAPATUNAYAN.

    PAULIT-ULIT NA LANG. WALANG KWENTA.

    ReplyDelete
  92. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting an IGNORANT SOURCE:
    Is The Bible God's Word

    CHAPTER FIVE

    DAMNING CONFESSIONS

    Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."

    "THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."

    CENON BIBE:
    Ayun, kaya naman po pala MALI-MALI ang ALAM NITONG PALAMURANG TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO ay DAHIL MANGMANG DIN ang mga SOURCE NIYA.

    WALA na po TAYONG KOMENTO RIYAN.

    Ang BULAG ay NAGPAAKAY sa BULAG.

    Sabi ng PANGINOONG HESUS:

    Matthew 15:14
    Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

    O, di po ba TUNAY na TUNAY ang BIBLIYA?

    NATUMBOK ang BALIK ISLAM kahit po NAGSALITA si KRISTO may 2,000 TAON NA ang NAKALILIPAS.

    ReplyDelete
  93. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged

    CENON BIBE:
    THIS ISLAMIC REVERT or BALIK ISLAM is SO IGNORANT, HE IS SLAPPING HIMSELF IN THE FACE.

    And WHAT DOES HE EXPECT the CHURCH FATHERS SHOULD HAVE DONE? ACCEPT ALL WRITINGS EVEN THE SPURIOUS ONES?

    THE CHURCH FATHERS are not like this BALIK ISLAM who DOES NOT PICK or SELECT the RIGHT SOURCES to use as REFERENCES.

    THIS BALIK ISLAM is SO USED TO LIVING IN IGNORANCE that HE CHOOSES INCREDIBLE and ERRONEOUS REFERENCES as BASES for HIS MISTAKEN BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

    Anyway, HE ONLY PROVES MY POINT that HE IS ADDICTED to ERROR and LIES.

    Aren't WE GLAD that WE ARE CHRISTIANS? WE DO NOT SHARE the IGNORANCE and ERRORS of THIS BALIK ISLAM.

    PRAISE JESUS! PRAISE GOD!

    ReplyDelete
  94. WAIT! Before we continue, it is worth noting that THIS BALIK ISLAM has AGAIN FAILED to ANSWER ANY of OUR PERTINENT QUESTIONS about the QUR'AN.

    Is this BALIK ISLAM fellow ASHAMED of the QUR'AN? Is there NOTHING HE CAN SAY to LIFT UP the ISLAMIC HOLY BOOK?

    Instead of RESPONDING to OUR PERTINENT QUESTIONS, this BALIK ISLAM FELLOW FOLLOWS UP his ERRONEOUS CLAIMS with FURTHER IGNORANT RANTINGS.

    ReplyDelete
  95. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.

    CENON BIBE:
    LOOK here! The VERY SOURCE of this BALIK ISLAM is SLAPPING HIM in the FACE.

    HIS SOURCE is saying that "for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE"

    HE is BEING CONTRADICTED by HIS OWN SOURCE.

    Now, WHO has the SICK MIND?

    IT is THIS BALIK ISLAM who QUOTES a SOURCE WHICH ITSELF CONTRADICTS HIS ERRONEOUS CLAIMS.

    NAKAKATAWA, di po ba?

    WALA po TAYONG MAGAGAWA, MAHINA TALAGA UTAK nitong BALIK ISLAM na ITO e.

    ReplyDelete
  96. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."

    CENON BIBE:
    LOOK at HOW SICK this BALIK ISLAM'S MIND IS.

    HE is now ATTACKING HIS OWN SOURCE. Hehehe.

    HE QUOTES a SOURCE as HIS BASIS FOR AUTHORITY and then ATTACKS HIS OWN SOURCE or REFENCE MATERIAL?

    HOW SICK can HE GET?

    Well, that probably is what happens to a PERSON WHO TURNS HIS BACK ON THE ONE TRUE GOD: HE LOSES HIS MIND.

    ReplyDelete
  97. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM quoting a BIBLE SCHOLAR:
    Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-

    "AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."

    CENON BIBE:
    THIS BALIK ISLAM SHOULD READ HIS REFERENCES.

    HE WOULD BENEFIT SO MUCH from WHAT SCROGGIE SAYS.

    HIS IGNORANCE WOULD be LESSENED.

    ReplyDelete
  98. THE IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM PROVIDES some VERY GOOD EXAMPLES of HIS IGNORANCE.

    Let us read a few quotations he made from the Bible and see his COMMENT.

    He QUOTES:
    • "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."

    • "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."

    • "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."

    • "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ."

    • "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."

    HERE is the BALIK ISLAM'S COMMENT:
    "It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay."

    WHAT?! The TEXTS QUOTE GOD HIMSELF while TALKING TO MOISES and QUOTES MOISES while SPEAKING to GOD.

    The TEXTS QUOTE GOD'S VERY WORDS. WHAT is this IGNORANT CRITIC SAYING that "THESE ARE NEITHER the WORDS of GOD NOR of MOISES"?

    Perhaps HE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED the QUOTATIONS so that HE COULD HAVE SEEN the VERY WORDS of GOD.

    The IGNORANCE of this BALIK ISLAM is APPALLING.

    What is GOOD is that HE IS GIVING US an OPPORTUNITY to EXPOSE HIS IGNORANCE.

    PRAISE JESUS! PRAISE GOD!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Umiidolo kay Cenon Bibe;
    Ganito pala makipagtalo ang isang muslim.
    Mababaho at masasamang salita ang lumalabas
    sa kanyang bibig.
    For your information hindi lang si Bro.Cenon
    ang naniniwala na si Matthew ang nagsulat ng gospel according to matthew.

    Muslim;
    Oh ikaw mismo pinatunayan mo mismo ngayon na hindi si Matthew ang may gawa o sulat ng Mathhew! Ano nga ba sabi nitong tukmol na ito, mga giliw na taga subaybay? "hindi lang si Bro.Cenon
    ang naniniwala na si Matthew ang nagsulat ng gospel according to matthew." ACCORDING TO MATTHEW na daw po! pero kay Matthew pa rin? hahahahaha! Nasaan na ba ang mga UTAK nyo? Nasa TALAMPAKAN na ba at wala na sa inyong mga ULO? Kawawa naman kayo!

    Umiidolo kay Cenon Bibe;
    Ang ginagamit mong proof na di si Matthew nagsulat nun ay yung 9:9?
    Ang babaw at walang kwenta ang argumento mo dahil di mo naman alam kung anong form of narration ang ginamit.

    Muslim;
    Anong Form yan? ang Third Person Narrative bang pinagmamalaki ninyo? Eh anong unawa nyo sa Third Person Narrative? Na si Matthew pa rin ang Sumusulat ng nasabing Gospel? ha? Bakit ang ibang mga book ng Bibliya eh mga old testament pa eh walang Third Person Narrative? what kind of Games are you really playing inhere? Take for example in the Book of Joshua? THE BOOK ACCORDING TO JOSHUA ba yan? bagamat lumilitaw pa rin na ang nasabing book ay di talaga sulat ni Joshua pero di lantarang inaamin na iba ang nagsusulat sa nasabing Libro (book of Joshua) kaya hindi THE BOOK ACCORDING TO JOSHU but then Joshua 1:1 proved that Joshua is the writer of the book!

    Joshua 1:1
    "Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,"

    pero kong gagamitan natin ng kaunting isip; Dapat ganito yan:

    "Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto ME the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,"

    Umiidolo kay Cenon Bibe;
    Napapatunayan mo lang sa aming katoliko na wala kayong alam sa Bibliya naming katoliko dahil wala sa inyo ang Espiritu Santo na siyang gagabay sa pagunawa ng Bibliya.


    Muslim;
    "Espiritu Santo na siyang gagabay sa pagunawa ng Bibliya." hahahahahahahaha! That's EVERYBODYS claimed! Every Christian I encounter for the past 15 years me being a Muslim claimed of the same thing, as you do! Pang 873 ka ng Christian na nagclaimed sa akin ng Ganyan! anong Bibliya ang talagang ginagabayan ng HOLY Spirit ang 73 books of the Bible ba ninyo o ang 66 books of the bible ng mga nagPoprotesta sa inyo? Siguro naman kong may UTAK ka at kong nasa tamang pag-iisip ka pa alam mo na napakaraming VERSION ang Bibliya! Lahat ba yon Ginagabayan ng Holy Spirit? Sumagot Ka! Galit ako sa mga tanga!

    At ito pa para sa kapakanan nitong Tangang kausap ko! bakit ang mga epistle (book in letter form) nila ni James, Peter, John & Jude ay hindi ACCORDING TO? hA? bakit? alam mo ba? Kong ikaw may UTAK sa apat (4) na ACCORDING TO na mga Gospel TALAMAK dyan ang Kopyahan or Pagnanakaw ng IDEA or GAWA ng Iba! or

    Plagiarism "something plagiarized: a piece of written work or an idea that somebody has copied and claimed as his or her own"

    "stealing somebody's work or idea: the process of copying another person's idea or written work and claiming it as original."

    Ang nasabing mga Gospel na ito ay ang mga gospel ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE

    ReplyDelete
  100. Umiidolo kay Cenon Bibe;
    If you are a wise person would you believe such claim without any PROOF?
    What is the proof here of mrs. white? NOTHING!!! so how can we consider such claim
    that the content of the bible were change by learned men?
    This is just another make up story to destroy the Bible.

    Muslim;
    Proof? hahahahaha! tulog ka ba? How many Books of the Bible you have right now? You have 73 BOOKS of the Bible for your Information! Then meron pang MULTI VERSIONS nitong 66 BOOKS of the Bible! alam mo ba kong ilang Version na ang Bible? Tulog ka yata eh! ako mismo mayroon ng 9 different Version of the Bible! and this 9 different Version of the Bible that I have are not IDENTICAL! No two are Identical! Now kong maniniwala ka sa sinasabi ni Mrs White or not, di mo rin mababago ang katutohanan na marami talagang magkakaibang VERSIONs ang Bibliya! So to speak!

    ReplyDelete
  101. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?

    Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.

    CENON BIBE:
    AGAIN, this BALIK ISLAM PRETENDS to be KNOWLEDGEABLE but is REALLY IGNORANT of the BIBLE.

    Wait, I'll correct myself. He is not IGNORANT of the BIBLE. This BALIK ISLAM is IGNORANT. PERIOD.

    Ang SINASABI po tungkol sa PENTATEUCH o FIRST FIVE BOOKS ng BIBLIYA ay SI MOISES ang AUTHOR ng mga ITO. HINDI SINASABI na SIYA ang WRITER.

    THIS BALIK ISLAM DOES NOT KNOW the MEANING of the word AUTHOR.

    It appears that he EQUATES IT SOLELY with the WRITER.

    WRONG.

    ACCORDING to TRULY KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, a person who writes MAY NOT NECESSARILLY BE THE AUTHOR of THAT WORK.

    Heto po ang sabi ng mga EKSPERTO sa WIKANG INGLES sa AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:

    "The verb author, which had been out of use for a long period, has been rejuvenated in recent years with the sense "to assume responsibility for the content of a published text." As such it is not quite synonymous with the verb write; one can write, but not author, a love letter or an unpublished manuscript, and the writer who ghostwrites a book for a celebrity cannot be said to have "authored" the creation."

    NAKITA po NINYO? MALING-MALI ang ALAM NITONG BALIK ISLAM, di po ba?

    Ayon po riyan, ang WRITER MAY NOT NECESSARILLY BE the AUTHOR of a WORK.

    Sinasabi rin po riyan na ang AUTHOR ay ang TAO o PERSONA na "[nag-a-]assume responsibility for the content of a published text."

    THAT is the MEANING when people say that MOISES is the AUTHOR of the FIRST FIVE BOOKS. It means that MOISES WAS RESPONSIBLE for the CONTENTS of the PENTATEUCH. IT DOES NOT MEAN that HE WROTE IT.

    But WHAT DOES an IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM KNOW about such things?

    The VERY REASON HE WAS FOOLED INTO TURNING HIS BACK on CHRIST, the GOD and SAVIOR, is HIS IGNORANCE.

    KAWAWA NAMAN.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Now, let us ANSWER THE QUESTION about THE DEATH OF MOISES being INCLUDED in the PENTATEUCH.

    It is a KNOWN FACT among PEOPLE WHO KNOW (in contrast to this BALIK ISLAM who KNOWS NOTHING) that while MOISES was the AUTHOR or SOURCE of the CONTENTS of the FIRST FIVE BOOKS, that the PENTATEUCH was COMPILED by ANOTHER PERSON or PERSONS.

    The COMPILER or COMPILERS are NOT the AUTHORS of the FIRST FIVE BOOKS. THEY merely COLLECTED ALL the WORKS of MOISES who was CHOSEN and GUIDED BY GOD and PUT THEM TOGETHER in a series of WRITINGS.

    In COMPILING the WORKS AUTHORED or STARTED by MOISES, the COMPILERS or COMPILERS, GUIDED by GOD, included HIS DEATH in the NARRATIVE.

    IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

    But as we KNOW, EVEN such a SIMPLE THING is COMPLICATED and INCOMPREHENSIBLE to an IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM like this MISGUIDED CRITIC of the BIBLE.

    ReplyDelete
  103. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    WHY "ACCORDING TO?"

    What about the so-called New Testament? 1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — ACCORDING TO ... ACCORDING TO ... (See below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.

    CENON BIBE:
    THE IGNORANCE of THIS BALIK ISLAM is INDEED LAUGHABLE.

    HE does NOT EVEN KNOW what "ACCORDING TO" MEANS.

    FIRST and FOREMOST, this BALIK ISLAM LAID OUT HIS IGNORANCE when he said that "not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph!"

    HOW DID HE KNOW? WHERE IS HIS PROOF?

    HIS CLAIM that the GOSPELS were "NOT WRITTEN" by their AUTHORS is NOT PROOF of ANYTHING but HIS GROSS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

    "ACCORDING TO" is an ATTRIBUTION. It SIMPLY STATES WHO is the AUTHOR or SOURCE of a WRITING.

    It is a TESTIMONY by the PEOPLE of GOD, the CHURCH, as to WHO AUTHORED the FOUR GOSPELS. It is the PEOPLE of GOD--MORE THAN an IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM--who CAN ATTEST to the AUTHORITY BEHIND the GOSPELS.

    In saying that the GOSPELS are "ACCORDING TO" MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE and JOHN, the PEOPLE of GOD SIMPLY STATED that THE PEOPLE who ORIGINATED these ACCOUNTS are either DIRECT WITNESSES or PEOPLE who are CREDIBLE SOURCES of SUCH KNOWLEDGE.

    THIS BALIK ISLAM is trying to HIDE the FACT that HE CANNOT ANSWER our QUESTION on WHO IS THE WITNESS BEHIND the CONTENTS of the QUR'AN.

    WHY? ARE THERE NO WITNESSES who would TESTIFY that THE WORDS in the QUR'AN were INDEED DIRECTLY GIVEN BY GOD to their PROPHET?

    THIS BALIK ISLAM SHOULD THINK LONG and DEEP about THIS QUESTION.

    We, CHRISTIANS, are ASSURED OF SALVATION and of ENTERING HEAVEN because THE CONTENTS of the BIBLE are INDEED from WITNESSES to GOD'S VERY WORDS and DEEDS.

    It MEANS that the WORDS IN THE BIBLE are FROM GOD HIMSELF.

    If this BALIK ISLAM CANNOT SAY THE SAME THING about the WORDS in the QUR'AN then HE IS IN BIG TROUBLE.

    ReplyDelete
  104. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    "EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW."

    CENON BIBE:
    WHAT? WHO is REJECTING the FACT that the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW? The "SCHOLARS NOWADAYS"?

    WHO WOULD YOU RATHER BELIEVE? The CHRISTIANS CLOSEST to the TIME WHEN the GOSPEL was WRITTEN or so-called SCHOLARS who are ONLY GUESSING that IT WAS NOT WRITTEN by MATTHEW?

    The CHOICE is SO VERY SIMPLE.

    ReplyDelete
  105. THIS IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM now goes on RANTING about supposed contradictions in the Bible.

    HOHUMMM. This STUFF has been RESPONDED TO in this BLOG.

    Please read the LINK BELOW for you to SEE HOW IGNORANCE is the GUIDING PRINCIPLE of this BALIK ISLAM.

    Bible Contradictions?

    The LINK will take you to a LIST of ARTICLES DEBUNKING the GROSS IGNORANCE of PEOPLE claiming that the Bible has contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous muslim you dont understand my point on the proof I am asking on mrs.white's statement.
    "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW,LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGE THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION"

    the proof I am asking here, what is mrs. white proof that learned men change the word CAUSING IT To LEAN to their establish views which is govern by tradition?

    I emphasize the words CAUSING IT TO LEAN, why? Because why would learned men change the words of the bible just to make it LEAN to the establish catholic tradition when it fact IT IS ALREADY SUPPORTING AND ALIGN TO THE ESTABLISH TRADITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    Where is the proof of mrs.white that the changes in words would LEAN?

    Your answer that you have different version of the bible to support mrs.white claim, has no relation to what mrs.white is sayying.
    Whats your proof there that the words were change to LEAN on establish views and tradition?

    Another thing, you claim no two bible version are identical meaning word for word.BUT DOES THE MESSAGE WERE CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE OF THE WORD USE? THINK ABOUT THAT.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous muslim said.
    "Oh ikaw mismo pinatunayan mo mismo ngayon na hindi si Matthew ang may gawa o sulat ng Mathhew! Ano nga ba sabi nitong tukmol na ito, mga giliw na taga subaybay?"

    this person is trying to put my words against mine with his twisted understanding.
    Give me proof that this support that I prove that matthew did not wrote the book?

    ReplyDelete
  108. PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
    "EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW."

    CENON BIBE:
    WHAT? WHO is REJECTING the FACT that the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW? The "SCHOLARS NOWADAYS"?

    WHO WOULD YOU RATHER BELIEVE? The CHRISTIANS CLOSEST to the TIME WHEN the GOSPEL was WRITTEN or so-called SCHOLARS who are ONLY GUESSING that IT WAS NOT WRITTEN by MATTHEW?

    The CHOICE is SO VERY SIMPLE.

    you are correct bro.cenon, why would i believe the so-called scholars when they are not direct witnesses on the time the gospel were written. However this anonymous muslim you are having a discussion here is believing such claim, but he cant produce any proof as well.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Muslim:
    patunay mula sa Bibliya; "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" ang tanong po 'is Matthew writing the gospel or the book of Matthew?' Simple lamang po!

    CENON BIBE:
    SO? ANO po ang TANONG?

    Muslim;
    hehehehehehe! kong kayo po siguro mga giliw na taga subaybay maaring duduguin po siguro kayo sa Taong! kasi po napakaTaNgA na! eh ang BobO pa po! sobra po talaga ang kaMangMangan ng Taong ito! Nakita nyo po ba mg giliw na taga subaybay kong Gaano kaporul ang UtaK at Pang-UuNaWa nitong si Cenon Bibe?

    ito po dear readers of this blog at naging katanungan ko po;

    Ang tanong po is 'Matthew writing the gospel or the book of Matthew?'

    Yon po ang naging simpling katanungan natin mga giliw na taga subaybay, pero kong mapapansin nyo po ay nagtatanong po sya kong ano raw po ang aking naging katanungan?! GAnito po KaBobO at KataNga itong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Cenon Bibe;
    NAKITA po NINYO? MALING-MALI ang ALAM NITONG BALIK ISLAM, di po ba?

    Ayon po riyan, ang WRITER MAY NOT NECESSARILLY BE the AUTHOR of a WORK.

    Muslim;
    Sa kaso lamang po yan ng inyong Bibliya! Nakita nyo naman po may mga UNKNOWN AUTHOR or WRITERS writing books in the Bible, kaya nga kayo ACCORDING TO! ACCORDING TO! eh! defense mechanism lamang po ito nitong si Cenon Bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay! Talamak po kasi yan mga UNKNOWN WRITERS sa kanilang Bibliya eh!

    Dagdag pang sabi nitong si Cenon bibe mga giliw na taga subaybay ay ganito; "ang WRITER MAY NOT NECESSARILLY BE the AUTHOR of a WORK." And so anong na po ang tawag dyan? If somebody is doing it without the permission from the AUTHOR hindi po ba PAGNANAKAW yan mga giliw na taga subaybay?

    Plagiarism "something plagiarized: a piece of written work or an idea that somebody has copied and claimed as his or her own"

    "stealing somebody's work or idea: the process of copying another person's idea or written work and claiming it as original."

    Cenon Bibe;
    Sinasabi rin po riyan na ang AUTHOR ay ang TAO o PERSONA na "[nag-a-]assume responsibility for the content of a published text."

    Muslim;
    So Papaano po, if Moses did not WROTE THOSE FIRST 5 BOOKS, did Moses become an EDITOR of that first 5 books? since according to Cenon Bibe for sure Moses will assume responsibility for the content of the same being an AUTHOR of the first 5 books! ganon po ba ang nangyari mga giliw na taga subaybay?

    au·thor [áwthər]
    noun (plural au·thors)

    1. writer: somebody who writes a book or other text such as a literary work or a report

    2. write something: to write or be responsible for the final form of a book, report, or other text

    Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Cenon Bibe;
    THAT is the MEANING when people say that MOISES is the AUTHOR of the FIRST FIVE BOOKS. It means that MOISES WAS RESPONSIBLE for the CONTENTS of the PENTATEUCH. IT DOES NOT MEAN that HE WROTE IT.

    Muslim;
    Then WHO WROTE it, if its not Moses? who wrote whose first 5 books? ANOTHER UNKNOWN WRITERS na naman? Dito na Gago na naman kayo sa tingin ko ng inyong Bibliya! without takin' a Closer LOOK If Moses is not really writing the books. May iilan na po bang mga Tao noon ang naka MEMORIZE or nakakapagrecite na ng first 5 book ni Moses or the PENTATEUCH? Nagtatanong lamang po!? kasi if meron na po nakakapag-recite ng mga nasabing libro, like in the case of our Qur'an it would be easier for those UNKNOWN WRITERS to record those books of Moses Perfectly as it is, with GOOD INTENTIONS!

    Cenon Bibe;
    But WHAT DOES an IGNORANT BALIK ISLAM KNOW about such things?

    Muslim;
    well I know the Bible better than you do Cenon Bibe and you know that well!

    ReplyDelete
  111. MAHILIG po ang BALIK ISLAM na ATAKIHIN ang "ACCORDING TO" na patungkol sa mga NAGSULAT ng mga GOSPEL.

    Sa simpleng paliwanag, ang ACCORDING TO ay NAGPAPAKITA at NAGPAPATUNAY LANG kung SINO ang MAY AKDA o AUTHOR ng mga ULAT kaugnay sa naging BUHAY ng PANGINOONG HESUS dito sa lupa.

    Sa halip na humina ang AUTHORSHIP ng mga GOSPEL ay LALO LANG TUMITIBAY ang mga IYON dahil MALIWANAG na NAIPAKIKITA na ang mga NAGSULAT o MAY AKDA ng mga iyon ay TUNAY na MAY ALAM sa mga NILALAMAN ng mga EBANGHELYO.


    IKUMPARA po natin iyan sa QURAN ng mga MUSLIM. SINO po ang NAGSULAT ng QURAN?

    TIYAK PO na WALANG MAIBIBIGAY na KAHIT ISANG PANGALAN ang MUSLIM. Kasi po, WALA NAMANG IISANG NAGSULAT ng QURAN e.

    Batay po kasi sa MISMONG HADITH o TRADISYON ng PROPETA ng ISLAM, ang QURAN na HAWAK ng mga MUSLIM sa ngayon ay EDITED COMPILATION na lang ng MGA NAUNANG ISINULAT ng mga SAHABA o mga TAGASUNOD ni MUHAMMAD.

    At ang masakit po riyan ay MARAMING KONTRA-KONTRA ang mga UNANG ISINULAT ng mga SAHABA kaya IPINASUNOG pa ng isang PINUNO ng ISLAM (si CALIPH USMAN) ang MARAMI sa mga NAUNANG KASULATAN tungkol sa QURAN.

    ABANGAN po NINYO at ILALAHAD po natin dito ang KWENTO kung PAANO NABUO ang QURAN na GAMIT ng mga MUSLIM ngayon.



    IPINAGYAYABANG po ng BALIK ISLAM na MAS MARAMI raw siyang alam sa BIBLIYA, samantalang HINDI NIYA ALAM ang MISMONG KASAYSAYAN ng KANILANG QURAN.

    KAWAWA LANG po itong MUSLIM na ITO dahil BULAG SIYA sa KATOTOHANAN.

    ReplyDelete