Last updated: 2nd July 2020
#Please note the information posted here. Are not my own works. They were posted on Facebook. So I decided to upload them here. For people to read.
Twenty points to equate evangelists with the ground
1; No practice of memorizing among early and contemporary Christians. Unlike Muslims, who have a memory of a whole-Quran practice today.
2; No manuscripts dating from the first, second or third century in which the Bible is available in manuscript form in compiled version, as opposed to Muslims who have multiple Koran in compiled versions dating from the late first century and early second century of Islam.
3; Scientific errors in the Bible, including the verses that the plants were created earlier than the sun, scientifically speaking, this is impossible. Unlike Christians, the Muslims do not know any events a la Galileo. In the seventeenth century there was a discussion between Galileo (a scientist) and a cardinal who claimed that the earth would be flat and not turned around the sun. In addition the many Contradictions found between the Gospel narratives. See examples here:
4; The lack of any form of sanad (chain) for the scriptures Marcus, Matthew, Lucas and John. Unlike Christians, Muslims base themselves on a sanad that is being verified, and according to this, a surrender is or may not be labeled as authentic, after which it is considered.
5; The confessions of early Christian apologetics including Chrysostomos that burn the Jews deliberately and consciously canonical books. (Chrysostomos in volume 9 comment on Matthew).
In his work ‘a dialogue with Thrypho’, Justinus writes the Martyr that the Jews deleted references to Jesus from the Tenach. (Adam Clarke, the holy bible, volume 2).
Jerome also says that the Jews have changed the Hebrew text in his comments on Galatians 3; 10 (Clarke’s Commentary).
Finally, church father Augustinus van Hippo, in his work ‘The City of God’, says that the Jews do not provide sound arguments for their devious seasons, which do not match the LXX, from Abraham to the flood. According to Augustine, the seasons that occur in the LXX are correct in contrast to the seasons in Hebrew text that are not correct.
6, All early church fathers including; Papias, Origen, Ireanaeus, Eusebius and Jerome confirm all that the Bible book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. No manuscripts of this Hebrew version have been found. What we only have is the Greek translation and a Hebrew translation of that Greek translation.
7; The second letter of Peter and the third letter of John were considered unreliable by some church fathers until the year 364, in the year 364, the conciliation decided to regard the three letters as authentic. Eusubius indicates that it belongs to well-known but unacceptable books. He also states that Peter’s second letter was not written by the apostle Peter. (Eisubius, paternal history, chapter 3, volume3)
8; Celcus (178), the Greek philosopher, writes in his work, the true word, the following; “Some believers go so far as to enter into themselves and change the original, the gospel three or four or more times, as if they are drunk and change their character so that they deny difficulties when they are critically confronted. The fact that the church father Orignes (3rd century) in his answer to the allegations of Celcus could not figure out that Jesus was called a carpenter. Because like Bart d. Ehrman noted that in the earliest script of the gospel of Marcus, called P45, dating from the beginning of the third century (Origen’s time) and in several later testimonies, the following; “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” Instead of being a carpenter himself, Jesus is the only carpenter’s son. Clearly a change made by copious and clear arguments supporting Celcus’s allegation.
9; The introduction of the site of the state Bible is as follows: “The lack of original manuscripts of gospels does not say anything about its authenticity. The most important manuscripts of the NT dating back to the fourth century. The oldest known Christian handwriting contains a few verses from John; It’s about a piece of papyrus that dates back to about 130 AD and is now in Manchester. ”
10; The Bible commentary Herald says the following on page 347, Volume 2; “The learned Melito did not include the book between the accepted books. This is handed over by Euesebius in his church father’s story volume 4, chapter 26.
In addition, Gregory Nazians have listed all the accepted books in a poem, but Esther’s book is not included here.
Amphilochius also expressed his question about the authenticity of the book. In a poem he attributed to Seleucus. Ten beatAthanasius rejected the book in his letter, number 39. “(Maulana, Izhar Ul Haqq, Izhar ul Haqq, Distortion and Abrogation in the Bible, 3-65).
The book of Esther was not regarded as authentic by the early church fathers Melito, Nazi, Seleucus, and Athanasius. This is also the reason that the book was not considered authentic by the scholars of the Calvijn reformation.
11; Which Pentateuch is authentic and inspired? The Hebrew Pentateuch, The Greek Translation, or the Samaritan Version, which show a wide range of differences. The Greek translation and the Samartan version have 900 similarities to the Hebrew version. And the Samaritan version has 6000 differences that differ from the Hebrew version. (Mustafa El Azaami, The History of the Quranic Text, 243).
Deuteronomy 27: 4 corresponds to the Dead Sea Holes and the Samartan Thora and NOT with the Masorian text.
Matthew 12: 17-18 corresponds to the Dead Sea Rolls and the Masoretic Version and NOT with the Septuagint.
Luke 4: 17-18 corresponds to the Septuagint and NOT with the Dead Sea Roles or the Masoretic Version
In Deuteronomy 32: 43 there is an addition in the Septuagint, which is not included in the Masorian text.
12; According to the church father Dionysius (the year 200) and Eusebius, the book “revelations of John” is not written by the apostle John. The book was written by an unknown John. (Source; Eusebius, history of the church, 7.25, 1-16).
13; Clement or Alexandria says the following; “All books were destroyed. After that, Ezra was inspired to rewrite this. ” Theophylactus has said the following; “The holy books were completely gone. Ezra was inspired by rewriting them. ” Jewish sources talk about 11 to 18 adjustments of the “Soforim” to the Old Testament (Rashi in his commentary). Under the Rabbi literature, this is known as the term ‘Tiqquney Soferim’. Finally, according to the early Jewish historian Josefus and the church father Eusebius, the original writings of the Old Testament were revealed in chronological order, however, this changed at the time of Ezra. (Eusebius, comments Psalms, psalm 72; PG23, 604b)
14; The first eleven verses of Chapter 8 of the Bible Scripture Johannes are a later addition. This also applies to 1 John 5: 7 and to Matthew 17; 21. Likewise, this applies to the actions of the apostles 8; 37. (Pullpit Commentary) (Barnes Notes)
James Robinson is professor of theology he writes in his work “The Gospel of Jesus, his original words” on page 69 the following; The real problem with this story is elsewhere; It does not belong in the original New Testament. It does not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts but was added in several places by later copiers … .. .. The most modern translators place the passage between brackets or note that this text is missing in the original text.”
15; The Greek translation of Daniel’s book, inspired by early Christians, was enhanced by the Origen’s church fathers in the third century. He has improved the book based on the translation of Theodotion. If the book did not contain any translation errors, why did he improve it? How can a book containing errors and improved later in the third century be inspired by God? According to Justinus de Martelaar, the Greek translation is accurate and inspired. Why was the urge among the church fathers to improve this version? Why do Christians today claim that the Hebrew version of the Bible has just been inspired? (Source; Helmut Koester, What is – and is not – inspired, Bible review, vol.xi, no5, October 1995, p18)
16; Marcus 16; 9-20 is a later addition to the Bible; The verses are missing in our two oldest and best manuscripts of the gospel of Marcus; The writing style differs from that of the rest of the gospel; The transition between this passage and the foregoing is difficult to understand (Mary Magdalene, for example, is introduced in verse 9 as if she had not yet been mentioned, even though she appears in the previous verses; there is another problem with the Greek which still causes the transition Become more unhappy); And a large number of words and sentences in the passage are not found anywhere else in Marcus. In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince almost all textualists that these verses are an addition. (Bart D. Ehrman, the evolution of the Bible, 79).
17; Even according to the “first church father” Irenaeus of Lyon, Marcus has only written his Bible scripture after the death of Peter and Paul. The apostle Peter has never read his writing, and Marcus has not written the scripture in the presence of an apostle. After the death of the apostle Peter, Marcus put his findings on paper. AlthaAccording to the church fathers. (Lardner in his Bible commentary). The scholars agree that the writing of Matthew in his current version is based on Marcus’s work. So he has taken over certain passages and stories of Marcus’s work. This shows that the disciple of Jesus, Matthew, is not the author of the work because if he were the author why would there be a need to quote from a work claimed to be written by a student of Another apostle. So you, as an apostle, are the primary source, but to draw your book or writing, you base the text on a secondary source, namely of someone who is not an eye of Jesus.
18; We read in the book that belongs to the five books Moses wrote (peace with him), the following;
Deuteronomy 34-5;
So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab in the mouth of the Lord.
And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; And no one has known his grave till this day.
According to authoritarian Torah commentator Abraham ibn Ezra (1092-1167) this is an addition to the writing of Moses made by Joshua. This is also accepted by the Pulpit commentary. (Source; Bernard M Casper, an introduction to Jewish Bible Commentary, London, 71).
19. Wrong reference in Mark 1: 2.
The problem is that the beginning of the quote is not at all from Isaiah, but a combination is from a passage from Exodus 23; 20 and one from Maleachi 3: 1. Writers saw that this was a difficulty, and the text – in some manuscripts – therefore changed; “The same is written with the prophets.” The attribution to Isaiah is found in the old manuscripts. (Bart d.Ehrman, the evolution of the Bible, 108).
20. In Lucas 24:46 is the following:
46 He said to them, “It is written that the messiah will suffer and die, but on the third day he will rise from the dead.
Nowhere in the Old Testament states that the Messiah will rise from the third day (Explicit word three days). In addition, Jonah did not pronounce prophecy that would be fulfilled by Jesus.
21: How the Quran has re-affirmed the correct position of History unlike the Mistakes in the Bible
MustafaSahinBlog 