comments on the Qur'an whether good or bad

[anonymous9887]

Any kid in the modern world knows this. And no I dont base myself on the KJV. My question was.

No offense Paul, but if some parts of the bible has been proven to be forgeries due to more authentic variations, how could you be sure of other portions?

First I would have to ask you how the scholar has proven it. I have seen numerous discussions, none that have convinced me.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. I know. And to be honest it's not a problem because the message is not changed.

The message is not changed between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and alexandrinus???

 

[firedragon]

First I would have to ask you how the scholar has proven it. I have seen numerous discussions, none that have convinced me.

You just said that the older manuscripts are more reliable. And they have many verses lesser than especially the KJV. Even other modern day bibles. Now you disagree?

 

[firedragon]

I use the earliest copies available, papyrus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrius manuscripts by rule the oldest carries more authority. What your speaking about is the ending of mark.

Again let me ask you a very easy to answer question.

Why dont you believe in the epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas if yo use Sinaiticus?
And which papyrus do you use.

 

[anonymous9887]

But its there in Codex Sinaiticus. Why dont you believe in them when you say you take the Sinaiticus.

I'll admit I will have to take a closer look at those. Because I have relied on scholarship with the variants, so I will get back to you.

 

[firedragon]

I'll admit I will have to take a closer look at those. Because I have relied on scholarship with the variants, so I will get back to you.

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

 

[anonymous9887]

The message is not changed between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and alexandrinus???

Give an example of a huge difference.

 

[anonymous9887]

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

I admitted that I have relied on scholarship. What more do you want. I'm sure there is a very good reason as to why that was a forgery.

 

[anonymous9887]

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

Now if you could please answer my question to why children are born crippled and inherit diseases according to genetics. How is that fair?

 

[anonymous9887]

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

Just by simply looking at the arguments already posted, the book of Barnabus contradicts the message of the gospel.

This is my conclusion:
That books are likely to be added to the bible.

Maybe the scribe took it upon himself to add that story that is inconsistent with the gospels. Is that available with Vaticanus? I would say not.

 

[firedragon]

I admitted that I have relied on scholarship. What more do you want. I'm sure there is a very good reason as to why that was a forgery.

Who spoke about forgery Paul. Why cant you understand this simple question.

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

Codex Sinaiticus has 75 books. 29 books in the NT. It includes the episle of Barnabus and the Shepard of Hermas.
I am not even asking about the OT. I ask about the NT. If you believe this codex is more reliable why dont you believe in the Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas?

Do you understand the question?

 

[firedragon]

Now if you could please answer my question to why children are born crippled and inherit diseases according to genetics. How is that fair?

How is that relevant?

Nevertheless, another one of my answers to this question. Children are sometimes born because the mother doesnt take care of herself while pregnant. Lack of iodine is one. Also genetic disorders. And sometimes, no one knows why.

Believe youve already seen this.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...eath-and-suffering.187349/page-5#post-4752270

 

[Brian Schuh]

Who spoke about forgery Paul. Why cant you understand this simple question.

My question with regards to the Codex SInaiticus was not that alone. My question is why do you use that manuscript and say its reliable, but not believe in Barnabus and Hermas???

Codex Sinaiticus has 75 books. 29 books in the NT. It includes the episle of Barnabus and the Shepard of Hermas.
I am not even asking about the OT. I ask about the NT. If you believe this codex is more reliable why dont you believe in the Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas?

Do you understand the question?

I'm jumping in a debate I don't know about. But I noticed your post. I don't accept the New Testament as canonical, so I am open to question the New Testament "canon" should some books been included that weren't, and some excluded that were included? I want to read Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes after seeing your post. Not being Christian, I might benefit from them as much or more than the NT as it stands. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Just by simply looking at the arguments already posted, the book of Barnabus contradicts the message of the gospel.

This is my conclusion:
That books are likely to be added to the bible.

Maybe the scribe took it upon himself to add that story that is inconsistent with the gospels. Is that available with Vaticanus? I would say not.

Paul. You said you use Papyrus. Why would you use Papyrus? Have you studied them mate. See, I have no problem if you just said that you study the codexes. But seriously, Papyrus? The oldest papyrus found is p52. You should take a look at it.

Also you were talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Do you know that there are over 3000 variations between those two?

Now you quoted that Barnabus maybe a forgery. Then how about the letter of Clement?

You said you use Alexandrinus. Have you seen it. I mean at least a digital copy? It has so many books never found in any of the modern bibles. Do you believe in them? If you dont believe in them why the double standards?

Nevertheless my point is Paul, I just wish that you look at evidence rather than quoting books for the sake of argument.

I think when you said the book of Barnabus that goes against the other books of the bible you were referring to the Gospel of Barnabus. Thats a dubious book, mostly regarded as a forgery. Codex Sinaiticus has the epistle of Barnabus. A completely different text. Now without knowing this you were quick to negate the book by giving an excuse, forgery. Honestly, I am taken extremely by surprise.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

I'm jumping in a debate I don't know about. But I noticed your post. I don't accept the New Testament as canonical, so I am open to question the New Testament "canon" should some books been included that weren't, and some excluded that were included? I want to read Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes after seeing your post. Not being Christian, I might benefit from them as much or more than the NT as it stands. Thanks.

Of course you will benefit. Well, at least thats what I believe. Because the bible is one of the most ancient books to survive time. We owe it to ourselves to read it and enjoy being part of the wonder.

Kudos.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are reading of a different account.
Read from verse 22 onward. The woman asked if her sons can sit one at his right and one at his left.

I will discuss the whole chapter 20, you yourslef referred.
It is not mentioned that the women's sons then left Jesus. Is it? Please
Jesus just denied that the women's sons will be seated on his right and left.
Regards

 

[anonymous9887]

I will discuss the whole chapter 20, you yourslef referred.
It is not mentioned that the women's sons then left Jesus. Is it? Please
Jesus just denied that the women's sons will be seated on his right and left.
Regards

So did Jesus lie or tell the truth?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I will discuss the whole chapter 20, you yourslef referred.
It is not mentioned that the women's sons then left Jesus. Is it? Please
Jesus just denied that the women's sons will be seated on his right and left.
Regards

So did Jesus lie or tell the truth?

The narration of the NT Gospels is not reliable. That is my point.
Regards

 

[anonymous9887]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I will discuss the whole chapter 20, you yourslef referred.
It is not mentioned that the women's sons then left Jesus. Is it? Please
Jesus just denied that the women's sons will be seated on his right and left.
Regards

The narration of the NT Gospels is not reliable. That is my point.
Regards

Oh no!!!!

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I will discuss the whole chapter 20, you yourslef referred.
It is not mentioned that the women's sons then left Jesus. Is it? Please
Jesus just denied that the women's sons will be seated on his right and left.

paarsurrey said: ↑
The narration of the NT Gospels is not reliable. That is my point.
Regards

Oh no!!!!

Then please give your reasonable argument.
Regards