Christian-Muslim Debate On Bible Authenticity

WJ is WhiteJewel (http://www.facebook.
com/AbuJaiyana)
The Public Square > GENERAL CATEGORY > One On One > Archive
One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"

FAQ Community Calendar
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Thread Tools
Display Modes #1
04-15-10, 14:26
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"
DEBATE THREAD
Proposition Resolved: That the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction Affirmative: "L" Negative: WhiteJewel Moderator: Ateo
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers
Last edited by Ateo; 04-15-10 at 14:58.
04-15-10, 14:34
#2
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471
FORMAT Debate Format 1. Affirmative Constructive -- 2,000 words: "L" 2. Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative - Set-1: -- 500 words 3. Affirmative replies 4. Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative - Set-2: - 500 words 5. Affirmative replies 6. Negative Constructive -- 2,000 words: WhiteJewel 7. Cross-Examination of Negative by Affirmative - Set-1: - 500 words 8. Negative replies 9. Cross-Examination of Negative by Affirmative - Set-2: - 500 words 10. Negative replies 11. Affirmative Rebuttal: "L" 12. Negative Rebuttal: WhiteJewel 13. 2nd Affirmative rebuttal: "L" 14. 2nd Negative rebuttal: Whitejewel 15. Rejoinder/Conclusion: WhiteJewel 16. Rejoinder/Conclusion: "L" 5 questions max 5 questions max
5 questions max 5 questions max
Note: a. Each item/post should be a maximum of 1,500 words EXCEPT where they are specifically indicated in the format itself. So, the constructive post has 2,000 words max and the question post has only 500 words max.
__________________
04-15-10, 14:44
#3
Ateo
RULES These rules supersedes all previous agreements or understandings in predebate threads. Kindly review the rules carefully as these rules will prevail over others that you may have used in the past. Start date: This debate starts at the moment that this post has been posted. The affirmative side is given two days to make his first posting.
This is the exclusive thread to the parties of this debate. The format and the debate rules are shown. Where the rules are explicit, I will apply the rules to specific situations. Where the rules are silent or implicit, I will extrapolate the applicable rules based on my interpretation of fairness and standard practice. Behavioral Rules (numbered for easy reference.) 1. Constructive posts must be used by each side to present the arguments. 2. Cross-examination posts must be limited only to the constructive posts of the other side. 3. The debater being cross-examined is expected to answer the questions directly. 4. During the rebuttal posts, no significantly new issues may be presented. 5. Maximum Word Count limit for each post is 1,500 words EXCEPT when the maximum is specified different for specific items in the FORMAT. Questions are part of the word count. Clarifications are part of the word count. Clarifications may be requested but no expectation is to be made that it will be addressed. Citations are part of the word count. These will also be part of the word count. 6. Time limit is 2 days (48 hours) from the last post by the opponent. (Note: No further editing is allowed after posting. If editing is needed, PM the mod for permission and a correction post may be inserted if permitted, but no change to the original post is still allowed.) Weekend is NOT counted. Debaters are welcome to indicate which are their preferred weekend days. 7. All applicable forum rules on posting behavior will apply in this debate. Please refer to the established rules posted here:http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/sho...52&postcount=5 8. Debaters should not extend their debate in the peanut gallery. They are not allowed to post in the gallery that will further support their argument, rally their supporters, and criticize the opponent during the duration of the debate. In other words, there is only one debate -- and it is in the main thread. The debate rules behavior applies in the gallery as well. I will exercise moderator rights in the gallery. This does not prevent the debaters from posting things in the gallery, such as greetings, etc, that does not violate the earlier stated rule.
__________________
04-15-10, 14:54
#4
Ateo
JUDGING Notes 1. This debate will be decided by a panel of judges. The panel members will be selected by the moderator based on the moderator's belief of the ability of the potential judge to treat the two debaters with fairness and impartiality. 2. The panel will have odd number of members. There will be at least 3 and at most 7 members. 3. The members will render judgment based on the indicated criteria. A judge is not required to indicate numerical scores, although he/she may do so. He/she only needs to indicate who won. He/she is expected to explain briefly his/her judgment. Each judgment is posted at the end of the debate thread one after the other. Judges are requested to wait for the moderator to signal that they may post their judgment. 4. A judge may choose to remain anonymous or declare himself. He/she may only declare himself as he posts his judgment in the debate thread. If anonymous, he/she may PM his judgment to the mod who will post it. Criteria a. Logic and Argumentation Techniques - 25% The use of logical constructs to lay down a logical flow of the argument to the desired conclusion. The absence of serious fallacies. b. Use of Evidence - 25% The effective use of supportive evidence and facts in the arguments. The relevance of the data, the quality of the source and proper attribution are key. c. Compliance to the Rules - 25% While the judges can rely on the infraction and comments given by the moderator, they can independently observe the debaters compliance to the debate format and rules. d. Debate personality and style - 25% This include the clarity of presentation and readability of the posts. The debate posts while instructive should also be nice to read. By "personality" it means that delicate balance between agressiveness that is expected of debaters of hot topics and of respectfulness that is the hallmark of effective debates.
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/
Filipino Freethinkers
04-15-10, 14:55
#5
Ateo
"L" is given 48 hours to make his first posting.
__________________
04-16-10, 04:22
#6
"L"
Banned (Pinatalsik) Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,820
Good day to everyone. Peace of the Christ to all. Today we will be discussing a very important issue regarding the authenticity of the Bible. The Bible and the Quran opposes very much in different aspects that they cant be both correct. Its either one of them is right or both of them are wrong. If the Bible is corrupted, then Islam is True. If the Bible is authentic, then Islam is false. LOGIC If I shown you fake money and you havent seen real money before, how can you tell if Im indeed showing you fake money? The answer, you cant Muslims believe that the Taurat(OT) and the Injil(NT) were both sent by Allah but were corrupted. So Allah sent his final revelation in the Quran. All of them are Allah's books, This means Allah is in charge of protecting all of it. When I say the Bible is my book, it doesnt literally mean I own it. It means its the book I follow which was given to mankind by Allah. No one has the right to say they own the holy book. The biggest question here is Why Allah did not protect his book? Muslims will answer; Allah chose to protect only the Quran does that make sense? WHY? What is the difference between the Torah and the Injil with the Quran? I think they are all words of Allah. If one revelation is important the other should be important too. Does that mean Allahs revelations are not equal? If thats the case Allah must be crazy(Sura 2:285 Allah makes no distinction between all revelations)
By accusing Allahs book to be corrupted is like accusing Allah to be a fool, weak and evil. We all know Muslims accuse Paul to be the chief corruptor of the Bible. This means Paul, one man, defeated Allah therefore Allah is weak. The Internet can preserve words better than Allah. Doesnt Allah have a back-up? Of all the scriptures (not only one because it was widely circulated) during that time, Paul was able to corrupt it. Corrupting the Bible means corrupting everything unless of course theres only one copy of the scriptures. All Revelations by Allah for thousands of years from 124000 Prophets / 25 Major Prophets (according to Islamic teachings) are gone instantly because of one man. Allah has corrupted the bible by His will or against His will? either of the 2 happened. If its by His will that means Allah is evil, or he is Satan, or an accomplice of Satan simply because he allowed it to happen. Lets say there is a Christian and he believes in the Bible, its not his fault to believe in a false book, its Allahs fault because he allowed it to be corrupted. If its against his will that means Allah cant be God because hes weak. Muslims say its about Free will and they chose to corrupt the books. Free will is the choice to do good or evil, to obey or disobey God through his revelations. If there is no book to follow, then theres no standard basis and all of them are lost and will be sent to hell in Allahs fault. WHEN and HOW this corruption occurred? Some say Paul(200 AD), some say the canon(400 AD), some say Translation et cetera, so anywhere on the 3 theories up to 600 AD when the Quran was revealed, all people went to hell. why do they have different explanation/no concrete answer regarding how the bible was corrupted? That means it didnt really happen. They are just trying to find holes to falsify Christianity and proclaim Islam Why Muslims quote from the Bible? they believe its corrupted at the same time the Quran say Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible(7:157). They are proving truth from what they believe is false. They say they only use the essence, do you see how much Muslims quote the Bible in this forum? Thats how much essence is left. They dont even know which part has essence or is corrupted. They dont have a scientific method or any process to determine it. They just pick verses they want. The Bible is not corrupted when they search for prophecies of Muhammad and other stuff, and when it contradicts them all of the sudden the bible becomes corrupted. They are Hiding to nothing SCRIPTURE Bible(KJV): Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Quran(Yusuf Ali): 21:7 Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message It says if you dont realize that this revelation(quran) is inspired, ask those who possess the message before this 10:37 And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the
worlds Verification (sometimes it says confirmation). It did not say Restoration. All of Allahs books should agree with each other (but in reality they dont, this will be explained later) 4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray. 29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." 10:94 If thou were in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. If you have doubt in the Quran, go to the book that was before it because the Quran is a verification/confirmation or a supplement. If they indeed believe that the Bible is corrupted then Allah is telling you to read a false book. More: 2:136, 4:47, 5:44, 6:91, 6:92, 5:68 Hadith Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434 Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying:I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." In this hadith, Muhammad swore in the Torah saying, I believe in thee and in Him Who revelead thee. Why would a prophet swear on something that is corrupted? You are probably wondering by now why the Quran and all scriptures do not support the corruption while muslims still believe so. Early Muslims and Many great Muslim teachers DID NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted. Ali al-Tabari,
Bukhari, ( gathered the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78) Al-Mas'udi Amr al-Ghakhiz, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina Al-Ghazzali (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after IbnKhazem but did not accept his teachings). Ibn-Khaldun (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.) Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced." Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." Ibn-Khazem (1604), was the first one to accuse the Bible to be corrupted. This was to defend Islam from Christianity when he stumbled upon many contradictions with the Quran and Bible. "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His accusation was not based on evidence but only his personal faith to protect the Quran Source: Christians Answer Muslims, Gerhard Nehls, 1992 Can We Trust the Bible?, J Wijngaard Quran, A. Yusuf Ali Kitab al-Asnam, Ibn alKalbi, 1952 Sahih al Bukhari, 6th ed. 1986 The Islamic Christian Controversy, LCA 1996 HARD EVIDENCE Anyone who believes the Bible is corrupted is ignoring tremendous amount of evidence. When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the caves of Khirbet Qumran in 1948. Scholars were amazed to discover manuscripts that dated 1800 years old showed that the Torah had been reliably passed on to us. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. Those are a collection of about 900 documents. At the time of Christ the Torah was commonly written in both Hebrew and Greek. Masoretic Text (MT) was used in temples by religious leaders. It is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible regarded almost universally as the official version of the Tanakh Septuagint 250BC is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible,
translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BCE in Alexandria We also have paraphrased version of the bible which are called Targums Biblical Manuscripts Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 50-60 AD John Rylands (John) 130 AD Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 150-200 AD Chester Beatty Papyri (NT) 200 AD Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 200 AD Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 325-350 AD Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 350 AD Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 400 AD and more The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of John was dated 1st century We also have 2,135 Lectionaries, 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers from the second and third century writings Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. This is contrary to islamic belief that we dont have a back-ups of our scriptures and only their quran can be authentically reproduced. example: Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament. Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books. Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament. And more Josephus a historian (37 c. 100 AD) whose literature bear record on the credibility of the bible as well The carvings in Hezekiah Tunnel 8th century BCE in Jerusalem validate Biblical stories. Using paleography was pinpointed just a few decades away The Apostles brutally died for what they believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead despite the fact that they had no reason to believe this. Of all the presented evidence above, if there really was a corruption that means Muhammad(600AD) was also using a corrupted Bible Thank you
__________________ I still pray to God that he will punish you in hell severely for your mockery. -WhiteJewel "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" 8:12
(the religion of peace?)
04-16-10, 11:26
#7
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Item 1
Thank you very much for your Affirmative Constructive (item 1), L. It is an excellent post. May I now invite you, WJ, to proceed with your cross examination (item 2)?
__________________
04-17-10, 14:37
#8
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Elementary Questions for an "Ex- Muslim
I begin with the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Assalamu alaikum to my Brother Muslims and Good Day to all nonMuslims. Peace be unto the Moderator, Ateo, and to my opponent L who claims to be an ex-muslim; May the almighty guide us all.
Q1 Mr. L, the topic at hand is whether or not the Muslims assertion that the bible is a mere fiction; you, being an ex-muslim, what is the Quranic basis why Muslims dont believe and accept that the Torah and the Injeel are not the Old Testament and the New Testament that we have today?
Q2 You appealed to the Quran in supporting your argument that Muslims should accept the bible because the Quran says so: the Injeel (Gospel of Jesus) according to the Quran was revealed to Jesus pbuh, my question is this: Did Jesus ever read or see or recite the New Testament?
Q3 - The Quran also told us to believe in the Torah of Moses pbuh because God has informed us in the Quran that He revealed the Torah to Moses pbuh . If we read your so-called Torah (OT), we find in the last chapter (34) of Deuteronomy which talks about the death, the burial, and the after death events of Prophet Moses. It could not be a prophecy because it is written in the past form. Could you give us a logical explanation on how could Prophet Moses pbuh possibly write after his death?
Q4 In the OT we read And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did [it] not. Jonah 3:10 Would you please explain how an Allknowing God repent/relent, and you being an ex-muslim, is it acceptable in Islamic theology (At-Tawheed) and Muslims should accept it since you insisted that Muslims should accept the your Old Testament as the uncorrupted Torah?
Q5 It has been openly admitted by many, if not all, Christian scholars that some writings (books) in the bible in which their authors are unknown or they are not sure who really the authors of those books are. These books included the book of Chronicles, Kings, Hebrews, ect. Would you please explain logically how could we trust a writing to be 100% authentic when we dont know who wrote it in the first place? Imagine that there is a Last Will and Testament being questioned, how can we be sure that this Last Will and Testament is authentically true when we dont know who wrote it in the first place? ================================================== ===================================== Those are my first set cross exam questions. I believe that "L" could answer them with great ease because they are elementary in Islamic apologetic and he is an ex-muslim.
Thank you very much. WJ To the readers: pbuh means peace be upon him a phrase use by real Muslims they mention the name of any Prophet of God as a sign of full respect and love for them.
__________________ Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Surah 2:256
04-18-10, 00:27
#9
Ateo
Thank you very much for these questions, WJ. They gave us a good idea of where to focus on this debate. Now, the ball is in your court, L.
__________________
04-19-10, 15:11
#10
"L"
Good day to everyone, its funny because I didn't expect that i will be also defending the "negative side" and be talking about me as an "exmuslim". Don't you think most of the questions here are a violation of rule 2 and number 1 is just an ad hominem or to test me as exmuslim then later on he will personally use it against me. anyway, I'll explain the best I can and use this as an advantage to refute it this early even before my opponent makes his presentation If I could answer these with ease using Islamic Theology, then Muslims must have answers for all of it, if they do, they should be Christians agree "pbuh" are used by real Muslims, my opponent forgot that I am a Christian. please excuse him. 1.They do have a basis but it's weak: -Biblical errors[later] -Unknown Authors[later] -Jesus never saw the NT but the Quran says the Injeel was given to Jesus(5:46)[later] -(2:79)Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. A CONTRADICTION TO THE VERSES ABOVE?
a single verse against all the verses above. let me fix the contradiction for them.. If we go to the Tasfir Al-Jalalayn or the scholar's interpretation of the verse, it says "these are the Jews, the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in theTorah, as well as the stoning verse, and other details, and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed" Point one TORAH ONLY. Point 2, only few details were altered. Muhammad was just warning the Muslims for Jews who made a pseudo Torah. But it did not say the original was totally REPLACED. Because it will contradict the Quran and hadith above Muhammad swearing in the Torah saying "I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee." of all the scriptures that have been circulating even before Muhammad was born, it would be impossible to replace all of it. This is also assuming Muhammad is a prophet and everything he say is right. unfortunately he was wrong, just scroll up for the Dead Sea Scrolls it proves the Torah was the same ever since 200BC
2. Another assuming Muhammad is a prophet and always right. It was a mistake for Muhammad to say the Injeel is the Gospel of Jesus other than the NT. Muslims can never prove that such book ever existed using archeological facts. They are relying on Muhammad's fairy tale. At least one evidence of its existence would do, unfortunately for them, the NT never mentioned anything about it. Scroll up for the NT manuscripts that are from 200AD, its logical to say that it is the same NT Muhammad was using in 600AD. it is also evident in the Quran that Christians existed that time(5:51). No other Book makes up a Christian. it is illogical to say that the Injeel existed and was lost in the time of Muhammad. Since Muslims also believe that the Quran is the final revelation, it should withstand the test of time or it should be applicable even to the modern era, this will only mean that it is not applicable nowadays because Muhammad is pointing Muslims to a lost book. THERE IS NO VERSE THAT SAY THE INJEEL WAS LOST OR CORRUPTED
The word Injil usually denotes the New Testament. Some Muslims believe the Gospel or the New Testament may have been corrupted over time. Conversely, Quranic scholars point to references in the Quran that imply that Allah would not allow his revelation (i.e. the Injil) to become corrupted. Finally, some also hold the view that the Injil is a lost book, different from the New Testament which was either written by the apostles or people connected to them rather than revealed word for word by God to the Prophet Jesus. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Injil
different changing beliefs proves that it is not factual. John 5:31 "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." He was alluding to the Jewish princple of Mosaic Law which says everything must be confirmed by 2 of 3 witnesses. Example you are convicted in court on something you did not do. How can a judge believe you by just saying you did not do it? A witness is necessary to make your statement reliable you forgot that your Quran was not seen by Muhammad because he revealed it verbally and it was written years after his death by UNKNOWN authors who Muhammad never met as well. Does it mean the Quran is corrupted?
3. Oh! the same Deuteronomy 18:18 where muslim scholars say Muhammad was foretold? Moses didn't write the entire book, it WAS a COMPILATION of his SERMONS. Even the text uses the phrase, "These are the words which Moses spoke (Deut 1:1), not necessarily WROTE but SPOKE. Like Muhammad, he revealed the Quran verbally and someone else wrote it. about his death, Joshua wrote it. Scroll up again for Dead Sea Scrolls from 200BC, it's the same Torah used in the time of Jesus and Muhammad until now. If you open the link for Septuagint250BC it contains the whole list of books in OT used before and it contains Deuteronomy Chronicles, Kings, Hebrews, etc. it even contains deuterocanonicals and it was used by the apostles for evangelizing. Does the author really matter for you? then search for the authors of the Quran first before bashing the Bible. I think what matters here is if it's the same book used centuries ago. Since his proof of corruption is Deuteronomy, It is included in the Dead Sea Scrolls 200BC and proven to be the same until now, THEREFORE the corruption for them started from 200BC, even BEFORE Jesus which Muslims consider a prophet, what's His use as a prophet when He did not do anything and people had to wait another 5 centuries for Muhammad who can finally restore everything?
4. I think the topic here is "Biblical Authenticity" or If the Bible we are using today is the same as the Bible used centuries ago REGARDLESS of the content. To the Judges and Audiences, please excuse him for frequently violating rule 2. he has no choice that's Muslim's only proof, and expect the next set to contain same irrelevant questions. We all know "errors" is a weak proof for corruption. Check all my threads about errors in the Quran, Does it mean it's corrupted? I have 2 threadsproving Allah is Satan and a Christian Apologetic Website proving Allah is evil. Does that mean the Quran is corrupted? does it answer when, how, who and what? we need facts not myths Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. somebody forgot to read the last part. Evil in Hebrew has two meanings: moral evil, and physical harm and pain(check the other translations). Muslims should not be surprised that the term "evil" can mean harm, and not just moral evil. The term is used in this way in their own writings, in the Bukhari Hadith volume 3 # 56 5. Archeology 1868 discovered Moabite Stone engraved 830BC in language of moab story which parallels the story in 2 kings chapter 1 and 2, 2 kings 3:4-5 Go to Septuagint 250BC again if you really want to know their authors, here is the full list but this does not prove anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible Are you sure the unknown authors prove corruption? Again, what matters
here is If we are using the same Bible used centuries ago regardless the content and author. before you bash the bible for authors, try searching the people who wrote your Quran first. Everything you said does not support the corruption
Biblical corruption is only a myth and they are believing it without basing any facts(just like Ibn-Khazem who said the corruption was after Muhammad). All their evidence are weak, easily refuted, and backfires their own book. They can't prove when, how, what, who caused the corruption. if they say its BEFORE Muhammad, the Quran itself testifies to the Bible's Authenticity. If they say it's AFTER Muhammad, we shall take them to the Hard evidence like Dead Sea Scrolls 200BC. no way out for them. If the Bible is Authentic, then you have no choice but to throw your Quran and search for answers regarding critics on the Bible. If still not satisfied then you decide. We don't force everyone to convert unlike Muslims. numbers don't matter to us like every converts should be videotaped and boast about it. the last place and most illogical thing to do is to stay in Islam just because of pride even though it is refuted. Thanks
04-19-10, 17:14
#11
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Set 2 cross exam by WJ
I begin with the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
Set 2 Q1 - Mr. L, despite of the fact that you admitted the Quranic claim that your Pentateuch is not the Taurat of Moses because you aid that some part of it was written by Joshua and others were his sermons written by other people, you still insisted that it is the real Torah. Part of the Old Testament is the book of Chronicles which contain irreconcilable problem, at least for me. We read, 2chronicles 21:20 Ahaziahs father was 40 years old when he died; immediately after him Ahaziah succeeded his father in 2 Chr. 22:2 Ahaziah was 42 years old
when he rigned after the death of his father How can a son be older than the father? Q2 - Matthew 27:44-45 Jesus was on the cross at the 6th hour while in John 19:14 Jesus was still in the court of Pilate at 6th hour of the same event. Mark 15:25supports Matthew saying that It was the third hour when they crucified him. If youll say that all the three reports are correct, would please explain here logically how could Jesus be in two places at the same time?
Q3 Another logical problem: Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Both passages agree that Judas died by committing suicide for his betrayal; the problem is that there is an impossibility in the second passage because it is clear from the book of Matthew that he returned/cast down the money given to him and died after hanging himself; how could he possibly buy a field with the same money which he returned to the priests after his death? Or did he die twice? Note that in the second passage the man who bought the field is clearly Judas the betrayer. Q4 The four reporters of the New Testament unanimously agreed that something was written above Jesus head when he was on the cross; the problem is they can not agree as to what exactly was written despite the Christians claim that they were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS - Matthew. 27:37 THE KING OF THE JEWS Mark - 15:26 THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS - Luke 23:38 JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS - John 19:19 What exactly was written above Jesus head? Q5 The KJV bible is widely used version of the bible by many Christians. In it are passages which are not contained or part of the most ancient manuscripts. Modern bible doesnt contain some of those passages such as the NIV bible, RSV, and others, discarded the verse in 1John 5:7 because it is an interpolation to the text. Mark 16:9-20 is also known to be not part of Mark; some bibles put these verses in the footnote while others made commentaries about these verses. What is your stand as an ex-Muslim apologist, do you consider them as words of God when you read the KJV bible or not and why? Thank you very much. Thats all for now folks. Thanks to Mod Ateo as well.
WJ ================================================== ========================================== BTW Mr. L, I was just giving the audience the idea about what we mean by pbuh because it is used only by true Muslims when they mention any name of a Prophet. It is therefore incumbent on me to let them know because I am using an abbreviation which they dont understand. I was not appealing to them that you should or any non-Muslim should do the same. So dont be very picky on things which you do not understand. All you have to do is to ask if you dont understand something. Moreover, I did not make any ad hom in my questions. You are appealing to peoples emotion. The moderator could have noticed that if what you said is true. Dont be so emotional, concentrate on the arguments in the debate. Thanks.
04-20-10, 08:18
#12
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Ruling #1
Post #4 (WJ's second set of questions) is in violation of the rules limiting the number of words in this type of posting to only up to 500 words. (Refer to Format.) The post had 721 words. Infraction point to WJ: 1
__________________
04-20-10, 10:59
#13
"L"
Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all. As expected and like i said, my opponent has no basis for the corruption other than "Biblical errors". They don't have real hard evidence regarding their accusation, that is why they have no choice when they are trying to prove it but to violate rule 2. notice that he can't ask questions directly that is related to the topic. simply because the corruption doesn't make sense Once again errors don't prove when/how/what/who. I can also show everyone tons contradictions in the Quran, does that mean it is corrupted? The main point here is that if we have the same bible used centuries ago regardless of the content. You said just because Moses didn't write Deuteronomy therefore its not the original. what are your basis for this? for sure this is biased and only based solely in your faith in the Quran but no other proof outside of it. Do you keep forgetting Muhammad did not write the Quran? This is assuming Muhammad is a prophet and is always right. Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Torah is the same ever since 200BC, to the time of Jesus to the time of Muhammad, until today. No one complained about authorship and contradictions until Ibn Khazem(1604). So why now in 2010, a person like you is following a nobody's footsteps complaining on the content instead of relying on facts presented to you that it is the same Torah? By saying that Deuteronomy is not the original even though the hard evidence proves its authenticity from thousands of years. are you saying the corruption occurred even way before Jesus? If so you are saying there is no purpose for Jesus as a prophet because they had to wait another 600 more years just for Muhammad to restore everything. I think its not necessary for me to expound on something irrelevant. Explanation is long and would waste my word count. 1. The scribe copyist was not an inspired writer. Ahaziah's actual age was 22. Biblical inerrancy refers to the original texts, not the copies. The errors are minor errors (e.g. numeric errors) which don't affect any doctrine in the Bible. We are able to determine what the error is, usually by context or by other verses. The original meaning is preserved and comes through. That is, no copyist error is so bad that the meaning of the text is obscured or lost. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal
the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.source 2.Summary is that the other author used Roman time while the other Jewish timesouce 3. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew doessource When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potters field (Matthew 27:7), not knowing that Judas was going to hang himself there. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field.source 4. The Inscription above the cross of Christ was written in four different languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latinsource 5. you know the answer, whenever muslims are in doubt of the english translations either Shakir/Pickthal/YusufAli you go to the Arabic. like you, We also go to the manuscripts and quotations. This is also the purpose of other translations. You can never prove Christians only rely on 1 translation Mark 16:9-20 is genuine: A. The facts stated in Mark 16:9-20 are mentioned in the Gospels (cf. Luke 8:2; John 20:1-8, etc.) and the promise concerning the signs was fully verified by miracles practiced by the Apostles and Christians as listed in the book of Acts. Hebrews 2:4 and other passages further confirm that such signs did follow the believers. B. Mark 16:9-20 is found in nearly all of the other Ancient Manuscripts. These include the Alexandrian (dated around 450 A.D.) which is next to the Vatican in accuracy and importance. C. Justin Martyr quoted from Mark 16:9-20 about A. D. 160. Among other second century writers quoting this passage are Irenaeus and Tatian. It was also quoted by Hyppolytus and Dyonisius of Alexandria in the third century. All of these lived and wrote from one hundred to two hundred years earlier than the earliest existing manuscript was written or before Jerome indicated that the passage was not found in some of the Greek manuscripts of his day.source / source / source The only problem here is that it is not included in the 2 of the oldest manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (b) and Codex Sinaiticus explanation on why is here: source Comma Johanneum According to Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.), the authenticity of First John was never questioned. Though 1 John 5:7 is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts it is found in most quotations of church fathers. Most modern translations, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include these words in the main body of the text. This is still widely debated, but if indeed this is proven forged, this still doesn't prove the Bible is corrupted as a whole. Included or not it wont do anything to gain or lose for Christianity. Its just an explicit verse on the Trinity.source / source Do all these matter? are these minor details that important that it could destroy Christianity and prove Biblical corruption? You know you have these kind of things in the Quran. Muslims can't find Major faults in the Bible that's why they are desperate and resorted criticizing even the smallest details. In fact all these critics have been widely disputed by scholars long time ago. can't you just search for the answers yourself?
These wont prove the corruption of the Bible and wont proclaim the Quran in any way. Thank you
04-20-10, 12:11
#14
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Item 4 & 5
Thanks to both of you guys! Our debate is moving really fast. You are posting quickly and arguments are all engaging. Personally, I am learning new things here. It is also clear to me what issues will be at the impact point of the arguments. Now, we have just finished presenting and examining the Affirmative side. We are now eager to read and examine the Negative position. WJ will make his Affirmative Constructive in the next post (Item 6 of the Format).
__________________
04-20-10, 14:17
#15
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929
Peace be unto those who follow the right guidance. Good day to everyone especially to our moderator Ateo, to my opponent L, to the unknown Judges, and most of all, the neutral observers. I would like to thank my opponent L for challenging me to discuss this topic in a moderated debate. This topic is so critical for both Muslims and Christians because as L has said in his opening that if the bible is proven to be false then it means Christianity is false, but if it is otherwise, then Islam is false. I agree with what he said because what is on stake is the primary and fundamental source of Christianity, the bible; if the bible which is believed to be the word of God is unreliable, then how could we rely on other Christian sources? I am excited to discuss this topic especially with L because he claims to be an ex-Muslim; that is to say that he must have enough knowledge for both Christianity and Islam while as for me, I am not a convert to any religion. The topic seems awkward to L because he is supposed to tell us first what are the Muslims stand why we dont believe that the Torah of Moses and the injeel of Jesus are his Pentateuch and New Testament respectively, but how can he deny the accusations/allegations of the Muslims when I havent put forward those allegations/accusations yet? But since because L claims to be an ex-Muslim, I presumed that he must have known what those allegations/accusations are. However, when I read his opening, I didnt see him presenting those allegations/accusations. He merely relied on his personal opinion about the subject. If we are asked about the correctness of certain claims, we have to know first what the claims are, why are they true or false and what is/are the bases. In a formal debate like this one, personal opinion doesnt really count. In this debate I will try to present my arguments in sections and numbered in order to make it simple and easy to be understood. I would like to emphasize beforehand what we Muslims believe about the bible. We believe that the revelations given to the previous Prophets had been changed, but not all of them because some parts are still acceptable. Therefore, it is a wrong notion that Muslims believe at all of what is in the bible is false. This is why we sometimes used the bible as proof especially when what we are quoting is supported by the Quran. Reference/s: Baqarah 75 Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion despite the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat (Torah) then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it? Baqarah 78 And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.
I hope that I have made very clear the Muslims stand about the bible (Not all written in the bible are rejected by Muslims). Now, those are Quranic claims and they are true only if Prophet Muhammad pbuh is a true Prophet of God. The Question is, are those claims supported by factual evidences? If yes, then it proves that the Quranic claim is not a fiction but a FACT and at the same time proves he was a TRUE MESSENGER OF GOD. Section 1 The bases why Muslims believe that the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus is not the bible today. a) The Muslims believe that the Taurat of Moses is NOT the Pentateuch of the Old Testament today. I dont need to make a lengthy discussion about the proof is this claim because my opponent L boldly admitted before us that some parts of the Pentateuch are compilations of Moses sermons which tells us that they were not written by Prophet Moses himself but by people other than him who are those people? We dont know because L didnt tell us who they are. We expect him to tell us who they are in his rebuttal otherwise his answer would be considered baseless and is merely a guess or personal opinion. L also admitted to us courageously that it was Joshua who wrote the end part of Deuteronomy. We also expect him to present an authentic proof for it because as far as I know, biblical scholars are not sure if it was really Joshua who wrote it; it is a theory but yet to be proven. However, L seems to be so sure about it, so we need his proof supported by renowned biblical scholars. We are correct therefore in our allegation/claim that the Torah known as the Pentateuch in the Old Testament is not the Torah of Moses revealed by God to him. b) We also believe that the Injeel (Gospel of Jesus *Maidah 46) is NOT the New Testament that we have today. I would like to thank L for admitting to us very boldly that Jesus never read, recited, or seen the New Testament. L is absolutely correct because the New Testament was written many decades after Jesus ascension to heaven L therefore confirmed the correctness of Muslims accusation/claim about the New Testament. It is tantamount of saying that L does fully and absolutely agree that the Muslims accusation/allegation about the New Testament is not a fiction but a CLEAR FACT. Therefore, his quotations on those so-called Muslim scholars saying that the bible is the Taurat and Injeel mentioned in the Quran is self-refuting; the Quran, the Bible, and L unanimously agree with me while Ls quotations are against us four, but Im not debating them, Im debating L. It is funny isnt it? *BTW, I feel that I am not making an opening statement but a rebuttal. This is because L has already given us the idea of what should I say Thank you very much L for being so helpful to me.
Section 2 Theological and logical problem/s: The Quran gives us a hint/criterion in determining whether or not a scripture which is claimed to be from God is really from God. Nisaa 82Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy. This makes sense because God is perfect and He doesnt err. If a book is truly from God 100%, it would never contain any discrepancy, much more discrepancies! We find many discrepancies in the Bible, but because of the very limited text remaining for me, I will just mention some because I already have mentioned some of them in my set-2 cross exam for L: a) The bible says that God repented this is not just an ordinary discrepancy because it is a blasphemy to God. God wouldnt repent or relent, because God doesnt err because He is perfect. Repentance is only attributable to those who made mistakes or missed something or anything that have been done incorrectly or inappropriately, ect. To whom did God repent, to the Jews, or did God blame Himself this doesnt make sense at all. Gods and goddesses in mythology make mistakes anyway. b) Some of the Unfulfilled Prophecies - Genesis 4:12, it says God told Cain: you will never be able to settle you will be a wanderer. Few verses later on Genesis 4:17, saysCain built up a city unfulfilled prophecy. Jeremiah 36:30, it says thatJehoiachin the father of Jehoiachin no one will be able to sit on his throne - The throne of David, no one will be able to sit after Jehoiachin. If you read later on, II Kings 24:6 it says that Jehoiachin after he died, later on Jehoiachin sat on the throne unfulfilled prophecy.
c) Logical impossibility - 2Chronicles 21:20 Ahaziahs father was 40 years old when he died; immediately after him Ahaziah succeeded his father in 2Chr. 22:2Ahaziah was 42 years old when he reigned after the death of his father How can a son be older than the father? Section 3 - Internal evidences; Scholars admission about interpolations in the bible It has been found out by bible scholars that there are interpolations of unknown men in the bible. This is in fact a confirmation of what the Quran is saying to us. a) It has been a debate since time immemorial until today and until perhaps eternity between the Catholic and the Protestant Christians as to how many books exactly does the original bible has, 73 or 66 Why didnt Jesus, or the Holy Spirit make clear to them how many books did he/it inspire? Why leave the people in confusion after warning the people about the curse for those who make additions or deletions in the bible? b) Unknown authorship of some books of the bible As for the Quran, it is widely known that the Quran is preserved primarily by memorization; even until now, Arab and non-Arab Muslims a big number of them have memorized the whole Quran from beginning to end. The
bible, unlike the Quran is not a verbal revelation according to the bulk of Christianity. The problem is that their authors are uncertain and some are unknown. How could we authenticate such writings if we dont know who their (Chronicles, Kings, Hebrews, ect.) authors are in the first place and no one has memorized the entire bible, not even Jesus?
c) Mark 16:9-20 are known interpolation according to renowned bible scholars Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270. Many scholars say the same in their writings related to this issue: F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume 2, pp. 337-344. A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33. d) 1 John 5:7-8 another interpolation All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads: For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Other books written about this issue: Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays pp. 458-463. I love to say more about the corruption of the bible but as you know, we have rules that limit our word count. I believe that the evidences are overwhelming. If we apply the principle of cumulative arguments, my arguments from section 1 to section 3 which are all based on real evidences, we have no other choice if we are open-minded and seekers of the truth, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the bible has been corrupted and it is not an inerrant word of God is a CLEAR FACT. Thats all for now folks. Thank you very much.
WJ
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Thread Tools
Display Modes #16
04-20-10, 15:08
"L"
Good day to everyone. Peace of the Christ to all. Thank you WhiteJewel for your presentation. Now I'd like to begin asking simple honest to goodness questions that for what I think is related to the issue and questions that are out of curiosity and if indeed there was a corruption, simple common sense can answer this. 1. What can you say about the Dead Sea Scrolls that aged 1800 years old and proves that the Torah today is well intact and still the same as the Torah used even before Jesus was born? 2. Why does Allah protect His Qu'ran, and not His Injil and Taurat? Is there a difference between his revelations or are they not equal even though Allah said there is no distinction between His revelations? 3. When (before or after Muhammad / approximate date if possible),
how, what, who, corrupted it? This must be clarified. Details pls. I never heard of a definite answer for this 4. Is the corruption of the bible by Allahs will or against His will? Either the 2 happened. Please choose one 5. Of all 124k prophets according to the hadith / 25 Major Prophets mentioned in Quran only one succeeded? Allah kept sending all those prophets and all of them are useless. Is Allah weak or man is more powerful than him? Thank you
04-20-10, 19:56
#17
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Answers to Set-1 Questions by WJ
Thank you L for your questions. Dont worry about the relevancy of your questions because I wont mind and I will answer them all if God wills or the moderator forbids me to do so. Q1 Ans: I have two answers to this Question 1.1 Muslims stand about the Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scroll proves nothing to us Muslims. Why? It is because we dont deny that some people wrote in the past about the previous prophets. What we are denying is the claim (your claim) that those writings were the revelations of God to those prophets because they are not. In my cross exam to you, you boldly admitted that Jesus never saw, read, or recited the New Testament, so in what logic do we say that the New Testament is the revelation of God to Jesus (Injeel)? It is crystal clear therefore that your New Testament is not the Gospel of Jesus but a compilations of different writing of different people from different places and different times, ABOUT JESUS. It is simply a history book BUT not a revelation from God.
This is true also to the Old Testament. You have admitted before us that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses in its entirety, but some people whom you did not mention their names, except Joshua, wrote about the story of Moses pbuh. That is why I was very thankful to you for your help. I feel that you are putting the debate in to my hands because you just proved what we are saying all along that the Taurat (revelation of God to Moses pbuh) is not the Pentateuch which you called the Torah. Does your bible still contain some of the original teachings from God? Our answer is a big YES! In summary, Muslims have no problem about the Dead Sea scrolls. The Dead Sea scrolls confirms what we already believed in as told in the Quran Baqarah 75 Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion despite the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat (Torah) then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it? Baqarah 78 And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess. 1.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls is actually a problem/confusion to the Bible believers The Dead Sea Scrolls as you know when it was reported to have been discovered was keep hidden to the people of the world, why? It is some few years back that the Dead Sea Scroll were shown to the world suspicious, the Christians may have done something to support their claims. The Dead Sea Scrolls as shown to us now are fragments of ancient writtings; there is no assurance that the wordings of the present canonical bible are word for word the same. Moreover, which version of the present day bible does the Dead Sea Scrolls support, the 73 books of the Catholics or the 66 of the nonCatholic Christians? Does Does Does Does the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the last 12 verses of Mark or Not? it contain the 1John 5:7 interpolation? it contain any book not present in the modern day bible? the modern day bible have its books all in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
All these questions have not been answered unanimously by the Dead Sea Scrolls researchers. Why? Only God knows! Even if I accept hypothetically that the Dead Sea Scrolls texts match the present day bible word for word, period for period for the sake of argument, my objections still stand. Those objections are in my opening statement and some are in my cross exam questions. Q2 Ans: Well, you started with a wrong premise. Allah did protect all His revelations sent to Mankind. However, you must understand that Allah did NOT send a TEXT REVELATION except for the tablets which He gave to Moses which is still preserved. No one can change the Word of God
because they are not written texts but verbal revelation. What people have corrupted are the written texts, and it can be done because they can be erased, tampered, added or changed, but the text is never the Word of God at all. If you think that the Quran is the book with Arabic texts in it, then your understanding is WRONG because that is called MUSHAF AL QURAN. The Quran was revealed verbally to the Prophet Muhammad; he did not receive a written text. What we recite verbally is the Quran. So the Taurat and the Injeel were not corrupted because their messages are still preserved in the Quran. This is why the Quran confirms what remains intact in your bible (Mohaimmeenan alayhi) guardian over the teachings in the bible which are still unadulterated. The bible which you have does contain some of the unadulterated teachings of the original taurat and original injeel such as God being the Creator of all that exists, the shema of Moses and Jesus pbut reported in Deut. 6:4 and in Mark 12:29. An-Nahl 36 And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tght[] (all false deities). Finally, the Quran has to be protected both its original verbal revelation and its text because there will be no more new Gods Messenger to come after Prophet Muhammad to correct the belief of the people in case theyll go astray. The verbal revelation cant be distorted while the text may suffer from typo-error but it can easily be corrected by the verbal Quran. Q3 ans: The answer is before and after. Examples of the before corruptions: Pauls false teachings about God allowing people to kill Him for the sins of the people. God being portrayed as though He looks like a legendary Chinese dragon; riding on a cherub; God repented, ect. (Genesis 6:6, II Samuel 22:8-9, II Samuel 22:11). Some people claimed that what they wrote is from God while in fact they are not. The bible also admits some of these corruptions in Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie Examples of the before corruptions: The KJV bible for example which is a new version of the bible contains interpolations such as mark 16:9-20 and 1John 5:7-8 and others which I cant post here due to rule limits. Take note what I said before, not everything was corrupted, and that is our (Muslims) stand. As for the exact date, I cant give because todays calendar is not their calendar before. Q4 Ans: Your question is a fallacy called false dichotomy. There are more than two
choices my friend, so dont limit me to two choices only. There are many things that God doesnt like but He allows it to happen because of His respect to Free Will which He has given to us. God did not tell the people to make false revelations and attribute them to God, but some people chose to rebel against God by any means, so we cant blame God but blame those people. On the other hand, we should thank God for his good plan for us. He preserved His message past and present in the Quran and He promises that it cant be corrupted till the last day. a. Allahs will b. Against Allahs will c. Rebellious peoples will the correct answer. Q5 Ans: You should have given us logical reasons why or bases of your statement that all the 124 000 prophets were useless. It is a hasty generalization. In fact those 124 000 Prophets were all successful according to Islamic teachings. Their objectives are one They all commanded to tell the people to worship one God and avoid false gods. (Quran 16:36, 35;24, 47:10). As to the acceptance of the people of their message, that is not the business of the Prophets because their duty is only to convey the message of God to the people. All of the Prophets are assured Paradise in Islam so how could you say they were useless. Perhaps, your concept of success for the prophets missions is different, and I think it is wrong because it is absolutely illogical. It is illogical because it is tantamount of saying that God is idiot because He doesnt know whether His chosen people (Prophets) will be successful or not. Your concept of the uselessness of the Prophets mission is applicable only to the bible because the bible says that God repented which means He made a mistake. The Quran is free from this kind of absurdity because it is uncorrupted while the bible is full of this kind because it is corrupted.
04-21-10, 06:25
#18
"L"
Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all Thank you for the answers
The First set was more of a Diagnostic test. Summary: -Allah did protect all His revelations sent to Mankind except for the TEXTS -Corruption was before and after, quoted from OT to prove the errors, and even the DSS are copies of the errors meaning corruption occurred even before Jesus -Allah promised to protect the Quran until the last day -Free will caused the corruption 1. If the corruption is before Jesus then whats His purpose as a prophet? Why didn't He achieve Muhammad's achievement that both verbal and texts are preserved & restore the corrupted, instead His Injil got lost ergo another cycle of corruption. Didnt Allah know this would happen? 2. How can you determine which parts of the Bible can be trusted? If you say using the Quran, what about the people who lived before the Quran? So people who lived from 200 BC 600 AD are relying on a false book(DSS) and are now doomed in hell? 3. Why Allah protected ALL His revelations except the written form? What is the difference? Isnt that the recorded proof of the verbal revelations, where else can you get the revelation if not written? Theres no other way to record a verbal revelation but to write it of course. Even the Quran itself is now in written form. 4. Why Allah allowed the people use their free will to corrupt the book but now He decided to protect it until the last day? Why didnt He make an ultimate incorruptible revelation the first place? It took Him many tries and hundreds of years to realize that fact? 5. If free will caused the corruption, how sure are you that your Quran is still the same? If DSS is a copy of the corrupted, what if you're original written Quran suffered the same fate by free will and because Muhammad revealed it verbally and he never saw it too? If you say Allah protects it, this will lead you back to question number 2 of the first set Why Allah protects the written Quran but not the previous written ones? Thank you
04-21-10, 21:43
#19
Ateo
Forum Deacon Ruling #2
Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471
As pointed out by WJ, L's second set of questions exceeded the number of questions allowed. L's explanation that he is just clarifying the main question is very acceptable. Nonetheless, it is still a technical violation of the format. But should be considered as a minor matter. Infraction point to L: 1 Needed action: I would ask L to restate his latest post so that it will contain only five questions. There is no need to edit the earlier post; it is better to simply make a new post. Thanks, all.
__________________
04-22-10, 00:35
#20
"L"
To WJ and Mod. sorry for that. actually I was in hurry yesterday when I made the questions so the way i wanted to point out things accidentally became questions. hope you don't mind -Allah did protect all His revelations sent to Mankind except for the TEXTS -Corruption was before and after, quoted from OT to prove the errors, and even the DSS are copies of the errors meaning corruption occurred even before Jesus -Allah promised to protect the Quran until the last day -Free will caused the corruption 1. If the corruption was before Jesus then whats His purpose as a prophet? It's like He didn't achieve Muhammad's achievement that both verbal and texts are preserved & restore the corrupted, instead His Injil got lost ergo another cycle of corruption. 2. How can you determine which parts of the Bible can be trusted other than the Quran? This is in consideration to the people who lived from 200 BC 600 AD are relying on a false book. 3. Why Allah protected ALL His revelations except the written form? It is the only recorded proof of the verbal revelation, Theres no other way to record a verbal revelation but to write it of course. Even the Quran itself is now in written form. 4. Why Allah allowed the people use their free will to corrupt the book but now He decided to protect it until the last day? He could have made an
ultimate incorruptible revelation the first place so it didn't look like it took Him many tries and hundreds of years to realize that fact. 5. If free will caused the corruption, how sure are you that your Quran is still the same and did not suffer the same fate by free will and because Muhammad revealed it verbally and he never saw it too? Thank you
04-22-10, 19:08
#21
bench
taong bahay (resident) Islam Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hometown Posts: 15,826
As per his email request and in behalf of bro WJ, who is temporarily banned by BARM, i am posting his response to the second set of questions of L. Note that if there is missing on what i have copied, i will post it later on, of course with mod's consent. here we go... --I begin with the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful Thanks to mod Ateo for being always fair to both of us, L and I. Thank you to Gab Bustamente for helping this reply of mine be posted here. Q1 Ans: I think that this question is messed up because in set-1 question, L was not asking about Prophet Jesus but about Prophet Muhammad, so there is no connection with the two. This is Ls question #3 at set-1 3. When (before or after Muhammad / approximate date if possible), how, what, who, corrupted it? This must be clarified. Details pls. I never heard of a definite answer for this This is now the question as a follow-up: 1. If the corruption was before Jesus then whats His purpose as a prophet? I cant see how the two questions are connected to each other.
Q2 Ans: I have to repeat what I have been saying since the beginning NOT all parts of the book is corrupted. For L it is a clear straw man attack You seems to indicate that my argument is that the whole bible is corrupted so that there is nothing good that can be found in it. That is not my position at all. I clearly said that the Quran confirms what has been left intact of the previous revelations, which means that there still traces of the original teachings of God in it such as Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29 and some more. So stop attacking straw man its a clear fallacy bro. Islam doesnt teach that people could be saved only if they have read the scripture. This is not the Islamic position at all. What Islam teaches is that God knows everything, He is just, Loving and Merciful. Everyone is judged by God according to what he have understood and did. The bible still contains the most important message of God to man such as Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, ect. This is enough for anyone to believe in and do righteous deeds and he will be saved. Therefore, even if the bible contains corrupted texts and absurdities, people can still be saved by adhering to the belief about the oneness of God and doing righteous deeds before the advent of Prophet Muhammad pbuh and the Quran. The problem for the Christians now is that despite the clear evidence of the biblical corruption, they still persist on their blind belief of the bible at it is an inerrant word of God In this situation, they will be punished by God because the truth has come to them now but they deliberately rejected it. What they need to do is accept the incorruptible, the last and final revelation of God, and that is the Quran. Q3 Ans The written form is not the actual word of God simply because God didnt send a text or a compiled literature. God sent verbal revelation and people wrote them down. The written form is not infallible because man it can be destroyed or could contain mistakes when it is rewritten. Why didnt God choose to protect the written text of the previous revelation as He did on the Quran? this is because there are commandments of God or laws which are intended only for those times and those people; they are not applicable to all nations in the present time. God, for example, allowed the marriage between sisters and brothers during the time of Adam and Eve. We cant practice that today because it would be an act of incest which is an evil deed. Why did God allow that before when it is forbidden for us today? That law was intended for those group of people only. Moses was sent to the Children of Israel, but what about the rest of the people? Jesus was also sent to the lost sheep of Israel ONLY, but what about the other people? The Quran teaches that in every community or nation, there are messenger/s sent to them because God wont punish anyone for not doing what God told him to do if the message didnt reach to him because that would be unjust. However, their laws are limited to their time and their situation. Finally, the last messenger was not sent for a specific nation and time but
to everyone, and he is the last one. He is called rahmatu lil alamin mercy to all mankind and jinns. Since he is the last, his message and the revelation that God has given to him MUST be protected because there will be no more messengers to come and correct any corruption if it does happen. So people could not make an excuse that no messenger has come to them so that they didnt know what the really the correct message is. This the logical reason why the Quran has to be protected both but primarily in its verbal and in text. Q4 Ans: God doesnt have to suppress anything that people do especially their rebellious deeds, otherwise His giving of free will to us would be meaningless. If God chooses to make all men believers, He could do so; He can even make Satan as the best of the believers. However, how could you have free-will but having no choice at but good works? How would the concept of good and evil, paradise and hell work? Why did God create hell in the first place if He was expecting that all the people will not do evil? So yes, God allows people to do evil just like the effort of those who rebel against Him and tried to mislead the people by corrupting the written text of the revelation, but those guys will be held to answer for their evil deeds on the day of Judgment. Further, one would need an encyclopedia shelf for the words of God if God chooses to preserved all His Words from the time of Adam . Furthermore, there are things that are happening to us today and in the future which were not happening in the past. How would God make rulings about those issues and teach it and have it followed by the people of ancient times when it is not actual or happening to them. What you seem to suggest is in fact God should have confused the people of old times by making sending a revelation having laws covering past present and future till eternity. That doesnt make sense at all. God did know beforehand that people would try to corrupt His message, otherwise He is not God at all but an IDIOT. God knew things before they happen, and God knows and has a perfect plan for it. Every time the message of the previous prophet is mixed with falsehood by the people, He always send a new Prophet to correct it, and it is up to the people to follow that Prophet or not. Finally, since Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet, then his message and the revelation should be protected so that it would not be unfair for God to punish the people who didnt get the clear message. Q5 Ans: We are sure that the Quran is still in tact and unadulterated, uncorrupted because it is not only preserved as text like the previous revelations but it is preserved primarily through memorization. People during the time of Prophet Muhammad until today have been memorizing the Quran. Almost all of the Muslims have to memorize at least some chapters of the Quran for their salah. We are also encouraged by Prophet Muhammad to memorize it or read it because it is our guidelines in life. Today, Arabs and non Arabs have memorized the Quran from cover to cover. There are even 7 year-old children who have memorized the entire Quran from chapter 1-114. Every year, we have a local, national and international competition of reading the Quran by chapters, by juz, and by the entire Quran. The number of people who have memorized the Quran has been increasing from the time of Prophet Muhammad. This did not happen to your bible at all past present and surely in the future because you are not even sure how many books really does the bible contain and what version is correct in the first place.
The Quran has a challenge for you and to all mankind; If you doubt about what God has revealed to Prophet Muhammad, then bring a chapter like it, and you know what, the smallest or shortest chapter only contains THREE short verses. People have tried but they failed miserably. You may give a try too if you wish. In summary, the Quran is perfectly preserved because of memorization and text while the bible is not that is why it contains corrupted texts. Thanks! Regards, WJ
04-23-10, 07:51
#22
"L"
Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all I just want to clarify I never said the Quran was not verbal. Please read my previous posts Q1set2, is very much related, you said the corruption was before Jesus by saying the DSS is a copy of the corrupted, therefore it is like saying Jesus did nothing as a prophet and had to wait for Muhammad who will restore everything. Q2set2, if people were saved by the essence of the Bible. Then theres no purpose for the Quran. Still unanswered, HOW people will know which part of the Bible is right or wrong without the Quran? You just said some of Gods words are still in it. I know. Its Allahs fault because he left those souls for hundreds of years reading a book mixed with His word and fabrication like a gamble. So its a matter of luck if you are reading the good part. When I asked, Why Allah protects the Quran but not the Bible? His answers werent clear: - The Taurat and the Injeel were not corrupted because their messages are still preserved in the Quran - Allah did protect all His revelations but not the texts - The word of God is verbal(cant be corrupted) while the texts(can be corrupted) - The Bible still contains unadulterated teachings of the original If Allah protected all of it then theres no corruption. His term preserved/protected because its in the Quran, is wrong usage of word, what about those who lived before it they cant call it preserved Allah lied when He said He makes no distinction with the revelations/prophets by protecting only the Quran and when He promised in the Torah(Isaiah 40:8) that He will preserve His words. Why didnt Allah thought of making people to memorize the Bible the first place? Allah was wrong for relying on peoples memory to preserve His words and not protecting the texts. He should have protected both because they are all Gods words(equal) and written is a more concrete evidence.
They claim that anything that contradicts the Quran is 'corruption' but how can the people before the Quran know that? Its biased and not valid, as the Torah precedes the Quran. Errors is a biased way to prove the corruption because they just dont know the explanation. It is also biased to say that the DDS and all ancient manuscripts are copies of the corrupted. They dont even have any archeological evidence of the unaltered torah to prove that what we have is different. They are just relying on the Quran too much and ignoring all the facts 4:136 O you who believe! Believe in Allah, and His Messenger and the Book (the Qur'an), which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away. More: 5:44, 5:68, 21:7 These verses clearly said ALLAHS BOOKS ARE WITH GUIDANCE NOT VERBAL. I bet hell say we dont deny everything. By saying the word of God is still there but were added is saying you are partially denying it. You just said yourself what we have today is not the original. You can't be in the middle forever Muhammad swore in the Torah saying I believe in thee he did not say I believe on some in thee 10:37 said its a confirmation/verification of what was before it not some of what was before it. This is why early Muslims did not believe the corruption. Their only evidence is sura 2:75-79, which is already explained in my cross exam. WJ posted only 75-78 so it will look they have more than one proof or different from my post 79 which in fact are only one and the same. We both fixed the contradiction in different ways, so now its up to the people to decide. WJ saying, confirmation meant some of the parts in the bible, or mine saying this is only a warning of a pseudo torah but the original was not replaced because its impossible unless theres only one copy 3:78 And verily, among them is a party(Jews) who distort the Book with their tongues... like i said, it's not all of them May I ask do you have other proof of the Injil's(Gospel of Jesus) existences besides using the Quran? Jeremiah 8:8 how can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie you cant have the cake and eat it at the same time. You say its corrupted but you also try to prove the truth using it. You cant say this is a good part this is bad according to the Quran because what about those who lived before the Quran. Jeremiah lived from 600 500BC. Therefore the corruption is now even more further in time. Its way before Jesus and Paul who muslim scholars accuse of corrupting the Bible Do you guys see how indefinite their answer is? He said the corruption
was before and after how did that happen? First, EVEN IF this passage were speaking about an actual corruption of the text, this would only be referring to the copies that were in the possession of the scribes. NOT EVERYTHING Secondly, Jeremiah was a prophet of God, which means that he was receiving revelation from God. As such, Jeremiah would have been quite capable of restoring the Torah to its true pristine form at the direct orders of God, and hence nothing of the Torah could be corrupted. Jeremiah 36: 1-7, 20-32, 27-32 proves that even the scrolls were burned by King Jehoiakim, Jeremiah and Baruch can restore it as ordered by God himself. So if you say it was corrupted until Muhammad(600AD), then Allah is Great it took him a thousand year to restore it, while Jesus did nothing because His Injil was lost(not protected by Allah) Jeremiah 8:8 was rebuking the scribes for their traditions that led people astray from the word of God. evident on the next verse Jeremiah 8:9 "The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have." Proof that this was not about the whole Torah Jeremiah 26:4-6 ": If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, which I have set before you..." Hermeneutics. Its better to read the whole story not chop chop verse.
Free will is the choice to do good or evil, to obey or disobey God through his revelations. If there is no revelation to follow, then theres no standard basis and all of them are lost and will be sent to hell in Allahs fault. Its only by Allahs will or against His will. If you say peoples will then it is still Allahs will, because was Hes just watching, He knows what will happen but He didnt do anything. On the back of His mind saying Ill just send another prophet after hundreds of years. Allah must be an accomplice of Satan simply because he allowed it to happen. The holy book is not bounded by free will, its not our book its Gods book. Its still His fault if He did not protect it. Everything that happens in this world is permitted by Allah 76:30 But you cannot will, unless Allah wills. Verily, Allah is Ever AllKnowing, All-Wise. 7:178 Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the guided one, and whomsoever He sends astray,- then those! they are the losers. More: 16:93, 35:8, 74:31 It's clear here Islam doesn't teach free will. Therefore if Allah chose whom He guides and whom He sends astray, it is most likely that the people who corrupted the book are the one who were not guided by Allah. Making this still ALLAHS WILL. He could have guided those people but He chose not to for a reason we dont know 4:119 Verily, I will mislead them, and surely, I will arouse in them false desires; and certainly, I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and
indeed I will order them to change the nature created by Allah." You see here Satan is making a promise to mislead the people(how did it get in the Quran? I dont know, Allahs will), these are the people who Allah sent astray. Those people who were deceived by Satan chose to corrupt the book therefore it is proven that Allah really is an accomplice of Satan. The Bible also teaches, Jesus is the final prophet and those who will come after him are false prophets and their signs and wonders should be tested if it doesn't contradict the scriptures. Thank you
04-23-10, 12:05
#23
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Items 10 and 11
First, I would like to thank WJ for trying to continue with the debate and for Bench for enabling WJ to post item #10, which is the final answers to the Q&A. Secondly, I noted that we have just finished the constructive posts and their cross examinations. Now, with L's item #11, we started the rebuttals. The rebuttals seek to criticize the opponent's constructed positions and to devalue his attempts his answers to the questions. We will continue with the rebuttals in the next three posts... Interesting! Thirdly, I would like to alert the audience and the judges that this debate is moving faster than our abilities to read. I urge you to catch up with your readings so that by the time the debate ends, we will have a good idea of what really transpired.
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/
Filipino Freethinkers
04-24-10, 09:16
#24
Ateo
So, it is now WJ's turn for rebuttal. I understand that he is still on "vacation". So, if Bench can do the same favor he did earlier, we will surmount this continuing inconvenience
__________________
04-24-10, 17:00
#25
bench
Mod Ateo....here is bro WJ's 1st Rebuttal: --I begin by mentioning the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful Peace be unto those who follow the right guidance. I thank God for giving us an impartial moderator for this debate and for making this reply be posted thru my friend and brother bench. This is my rebuttal to L answers to my cross exam questions: Beforehand I would like to alert the judges and the audience for the progress of this debate based on what I have observed since the beginning; L is trying to sidetrack the issue about the authenticity of the bible to the issue about the Quran and Muslim beliefs. Although I answered very clearly his questions about Islamic beliefs for the sake of transparency and honesty, it is evident that he did not really tackle the real problem which I presented. Why am I saying this? We have atheist members and observers here and they dont believe in both the bible and the Quran. Even if the Quran is proven to be wrong for the sake of argument, that doesnt make the bible authentic or inerrant which is the topic in this debate.
So be aware of it folks because sidetracking technique is sometimes cant be noticed by an inexperience debater and observer. Now, let me go back to my objections and L defense on them: Set-1 arguments: L admits his mistakes about his appeal to the Quran: he tried to use Muslim beliefs to prove that Muslims belief about the bible is not true, but when I told him/asked him that Muslims believe that the Torah and the Injeel were revealed to Moses and Jesus pbuh respectively while your bible is not, he CONFIRMED it by telling us that the Pentateuch were not written by Moses but by other people, and the New Testament is neither read nor recited nor seen by Jesus. Therefore, L attempt to prove the authenticity of the bible thru the Quran miserably FAILED. L also pointed out that some individuals wrote the Pentateuch but never told us who they were. Who really those people are? Nobody knows but God, and I think they were pagans because they described God as though He looks like a legendary Chinese dragon, riding of a cherub, and have repented; these are only true to MYTHOLOGY. He also said that Joshua wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy but notice here folks, these are his own opinion. The alleged Joshua writing is a mere theory and has never been proven by scholars. L tried to evade my question#4 by saying that it is not the topic of the debate. Well, it is indeed part and parcel of the topic of this debate because I am not only arguing from the Islamic scriptural basis but I also used LOGIC in my objections. He said Bible used centuries ago REGARDLESS of the content L wanted us to accept the bible even we find a clear absurdity in it. Well, we cant accept that folks because an absurdity is not and cannot be attributed to God. He also said that We all know "errors" is a weak proof for corruption well, it is when we are talking about WORDS OF GOD simply because God doesnt err. I dont know of any sane person who believes that God does err This is really a very bad argument for L. On the same issue, L was either evading answering the question due to its toughness or L did not understand his own bible I was objecting the text of the bible saying that God REPENTED because God doesnt repent because He does NOT ERR. I was NOT objecting about God doing evil. Moreover, the verse said that it was the people who did evil and not God so L has problem in understanding his own bible if this is how he understood it. HOW COULD GOD REPENT IF HE DOESNT ERR? The question which L did not and cant give any logical explanation. I also questioned that authorship of some books of the bible because biblical scholars admitted that their authors are unknown. We cant be sure if the document is authentic if we dont know who really wrote them especially if they contain absurdities. You know what folks, L said, well your Quran doesnt have authors too. This argument is called YOO MAMA DEFENSE (yes my mother is ugly, but Lorna is ugly too). With regards to the Quran, it is not the same as the bible because it is memorized word for word while the bible is not. So L is making a false comparison here. If we want to compare two things, we should compare apple to another apple not to any other fruit. The yoo mama defense is simply an admission that the objection is true.
Set-2 arguments: L said that the absurdity about the SON OLDER THAN THE FATHER is a mere copyist ERROR. Well, that is exactly what we are objecting all along. The bible does contain errors be they from copyist errors or addition, interpolation, deletion ect. You know what, this copyist error defense is a big hypocrisy not by L but by the bible tampers because if this is indeed a mere copyist error, why do these verses still exist in the new bibles today? It is as if they are telling us that Hello folks, if you want to find a mistake in the bible, here it is. This is indeed ludicrous. Another error in the bible which I pointed out is that HOW COULD JESUS and the People be in two places at the same time; L simply said that they were written in different times without any explanation at all. L gives his source and his source said that L answer is NOT PRETTY SURE because this is what is written Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. PROBABLY, what do you mean probably? Do we mean probably as SURE Is this how the Holy Spirit which is God according to L, inspire people? God is indeed not the author of confusion. The Judas death issue; we all agree that according to Matthews account, Judas died by hanging himself after returning the money to the priests. Later on the book of Act says otherwise 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. L wanted to tell us that the subject of the verse is not Judas but the priests. He meant to say that the Now this man, the he, and the his are the priests, WHAT A GOOD GRAMMAR is this isnt it? This proves that the writer of Act has made a BLATANT mistake about the fact of the story of Judas Another bible error! What exactly was written on Jesus head when he was on the cross is unknown. L simply said that they were written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin well, that is a BIG LIE because majority of biblical scholars agree that the New Testament was originally written in GREEK, so how did Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin be used as an alibi? Sorry L your source has just put the debate in my hands. The Mark 16:9-20 issue L admitted that it is not part of Codex Vaticanus (b) and Codex Sinaiticus. But why it is still included in other codices and to our present bibles? DAG-DAG-BAWAS as Philippines dirty election calls it. A clear proof of biblical adulteration! Comma Johanneum issue gives us the clear PROOF that the bible has been adulterated by early church fathers. The early church fathers, as L said, included this verse in the bible which is actually not a part of it. If it is included, then it becomes a WORD OF GOD, but L said it is not part of the word of God because it is just early church fathers quotations. What does this tells us? It tells us that the early church fathers made
interpolations in the NT, and fools the people by telling them that all what is written is from God. This is exactly what the Quran has told us in Baqarah 79. L tried to ease the shame of this fact after knowing that there are indeed clear interpolations in his bible. He now understands that his bible has been corrupted by the early church fathers. His excuse is that this doesnt affect the doctrine of Christianity at all because it is just minor points. Well, it does because it implies that corruption did really happen to the bible and we cant be sure anymore whether the text that we based our argument is really not an interpolation. Moreover, the Comma Johanneum is the nearest to the trinity doctrine. And lastly, the Christian doctrines are not the subject of this debate so Ls alibi is RIDICULOUS.
04-24-10, 22:41
#26
Ateo
Thank you, WJ, for posting your first rebuttal (and thanks to Bench for posting it). We are now in the midst of what I would say consider as the most interesting part of the debate, where each party clashes against the other in trying to sway the reader into his side. It is just about to get more exciting as the second set of rebuttals is about to start with L's post.
__________________
04-27-10, 01:45
#27
"L"
Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all Ls alibi is RIDICULOUS. --WhiteJewel WJ let the judges decide, you are not a judge, God bless you
We all know that ad hominem is a sign of desperation or maybe he just cant argue like a gentleman. That explains why he cant be here with us today(frequently). But we should not criticize him for what he is or do the same if we think its rude. Like I said, Muslims have no other proof but errors. They will do their best to divert the topic back to it even though its answered. Let me just remind WJ that this is also about "Islamic assertion" and not only about the authenticity. i already gave ample amounts of evidence that prove the bible is indeed authentic on my presentation which he still refuses to accept for no reason. We can see that the real issue is now being ignored, because they have no answer. Readers, please be aware that from his cross exams to me, to his presentation up to his rebuttals, he was talking about the exact same argument. I wouldnt be surprised if his conclusion will contain the same thing and I am 100% sure of that, I bet you my moma for that. How many times did we see him show real evidence or scripture to prove the corruption? Yes he used a lot of scriptures for errors, but the Quran talking about the actual corruption was mentioned only once, also tried to chop the verse to make it look multiple. And its already explained I wont point fingers on whose argument look ridiculous but I will let the readers and judges decide. He did not do a rebuttal against all my explanations, instead still tries to stick to the same and only argument he has ever since though it was refuted. he avoided reason vs reason or a battle for hard evidence(mano y mano). If yo moma said I admitted that there are errors in the Bible and I am forcing everyone to accept even with absurdities, then why do we see my posts answering the cross exams? No need for me to bother answering if thats the case. I call this choppin what yo moma said and puttin words she didnt say dawg. Seems to me yo moma was not reading when I said errors are weak/biased coz you just dont know the explanation and we can show you a lot of errors from the quran too. Its really hard for Muslims to accept errors in the bible no matter how hard you explain it to them. Thats the only thing they have thats why hes holding on to it very much. show them an error from the quran they say this silly excuses but still believe it, clearly biased. I just wanna share this to everyone, I wont use this to argue because one reason I no longer believe in Islam anymore is they always say its error free, but ask them about a verse saying sperm comes from the middle of the back and chest, that single verse, you will have different bad explanations proving they have no answer. Point here is, don't use arguments that will backfire you. A muslim will never ever answer the question was the corruption Allahs will or against his will? they will always try to find a good exit saying its free will, but in reality its only between the 2 choices. You cant will unless Allah wills. Everything that happens is the will of Allah. Muslims know it. If you tell a muslim your problem they will say Its Allahs will He has plans for you. If a muslim is planning something in the future he/she always say in the end Inshallah or If Allah wills it/God willing. But when ask this simple question all of a sudden becomes peoples will. other questions they will not answer are Why Allah is protecting the Quran and not the previous scriptures even though He said there is no distinction? and what is the purpose if jesus if he was not able to restore the corruption like Muhammad? The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was revealed. If someone today wrote a book that contradicts a historical document, the second book would have to be able to prove the older document was false AND also prove its facts were true. The document written at the time of the event would not have to prove itself against a latter document. This is neither logical, rational or true to the principles of the science of history. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate also does not by default mean the newer document is true. It must stand on its own and prove itself. we can see the Quran cannot stand without disproving
the Bible while the Bible can stand on its own Make a muslim choose between the Quran or Bible? Quran, because the Quran said the Bible is corrupted. But Quran also says it confirms Bible. Theyll say they believe in some parts. How to know the parts? Using the Quran. Anything that contradicts the Quran is corrupted. The Quran says Muhammad is in the bible, then some parts suddenly became not corrupted. All their arguments are Quran biased. They refuse to get out of their little box and look at all the hard evidence presented We also saw some contradicting statements: 1. Is the Quran protected? (The Quran says it is protected) A. -The revelation that God has given to him MUST be protected -The revelation should be protected - the Quran has to be protected vs B. -Allah did protect all His revelations sent to Mankind -He preserved His message past and present in the Quran and He promises that it cant be corrupted till the last day. Explanation: If they say the Quran is protected/cant be corrupted by free will, that means God did not protect the previous ones/allowed free will to be used. But if they say must/should/has they can escape the fact that God neglected the previous revelations and their free will explanation can be accepted BUT that means their quran can also be corrupted by free will plus they will contradict their own quran. I told you, you can't stay in the middle forever 2. A. So the Taurat and the Injeel were not corrupted because their messages are still preserved in the Quran vs B. Does your bible still contain some of the original teachings from God? Our answer is a big YES! 3. A. -Allah did protect all His revelations sent to Mankind Vs B. -Injil was lost -despite the clear evidence of the biblical corruption Does this mean everything you said is corrupted? Thank you
04-27-10, 09:15
#28
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Item #13
Thank you, L, for yet another exciting post. But those points cannot be left unchallenged. So, let me invite WJ for one final rebuttal.
__________________
04-27-10, 17:04
#29
bench
WJ's 2nd Rebuttal: --I begin with the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful Peace be unto those who follow the right guidance. Good day to our moderator, Ateo, to our unknown Judges, to my opponent L and to all BARM members and guests. In argumentation, there is such thing as APPEAL TO PEOPLES EMOTION; this is done by a debater in order to gain sympathy from the Judges and/or audience. This can be done in many ways. In this debate, L is trying to make it appear that his person is being attacked (ad hom). However, the text of my argument can be read by all of us. I did not attack his person but I only attacked his idea because this is what a debater is supposed to do.
Let us examine using the rules of grammar whether or not Ls person is being attacked. Ls ALIBI IS RIDICULOUS. Using the rules of grammar, what is the subject of the sentence, is it L himself or his alibi? You know grammar very well folks better than I am, but Im pretty sure that the subject of my statement is NOT L but his alibi. Therefore, I believe that L appeal to peoples emotion should not be given any attention, at all. L said Readers, please be aware that from his cross exams to me, to his presentation up to his rebuttals, he was talking about the exact same argument. I wouldnt be surprised if his conclusion will contain the same thing; Well of course because this debate has a specific topic, so I have to stay on the subject. On the other hand, L has committed a fallacy called RED HERRINGS because he focused on the subject about the Quran while the topic is specific about the bible. What did I say in my first rebuttal folks? I said even if I agree that the Quran is wrong for the sake of argument, that wouldnt prove that the bible is authentic. What L is supposed to do is belie and disprove my arguments by presenting stronger authentic arguments directly connected to the points which I cited, but as what we have seen, he didnt do that. What L did is attack the Quran which is NOT the subject of this debate. Anyway, I gave ample consideration to L by answering his out of the topic questions about the Quran. Whether or not my answers satisfied him, that doesnt matter because the subject of this debate is not about the Quran but the bible. I would like to advice L to stay on subject while this debate is not over yet, although I really doubt that he doesnt have that time/opportunity to rebut my objections. L insisted that I should only choose between the two options which he gave, but folks, I already pointed out that is it a fallacy called FALSE DICHOTOMY. You cant limit the choices in to two if there are other options to choose. L tried to limit the options whether its Gods will or against Gods will. He wanted to tell us that WE DONT HAVE FREE WILL anymore because he is saying that whatever we do, it is not our will but Gods. Therefore, if people tried to corrupt a book, it is not because people will it but because God wills it This in fact a very ridiculous doctrine. God has given us free will, we all know that, so we can either obey God or rebel to Him. If we obey Him, that is our choice and He allows it, and if we disobey Him that is also our choice, and He allows it to happen but there would be accountability on the Day of Judgment. If we agree on Ls argument, we have to agree also that SATANS evil doings are Gods will in which NO SANE person could accept because Satan cannot be blamed for his actions because it is God who wills it. L said that since the bible is written before the Quran, therefore anything that the Quran says not in accordance to the bible is wrong But is say it is not true because it is irrational. If we agree on that principle and we are consistent to it, we could also say that since the Hindu VIDAS were written before the bible, anything that the bible says not in accordance to VIDAS principle is wrong that would be the implication folks. On the other hand, it is rational and logical to say that anything that the latest revelation says which is overruling the previous revelation means an abrogation. I cited an example of this before; God allows the
marriages between brothers and sisters during Adams time, but it now abrogated by Gods later to the latest revelation. Let me illustrate it further. You know about the Philippine Constitution of former President Marcos; it was binding to all Filipinos before. We have now the 1986 Philippine Constitution of former President Aquino SIMPLE QUESTION which constitution is binding to us now, the old or the new? I think the answer is simple, but for Ls argument he would follow the old because it is written first. That sounds a joke to me. You may say from the back of your mind what about the Mormons book and others? Well, they are yet to be proven to be true words of God and we all know that they have no connection to the Abrahamic faith at all. L was questioning why does God protects the Quran in its original verbal for and the textual form but He did not do the same with the texts of the previous revelation? Well, I already have given rational explanations to this, but I will repeat them again: a. The previous revelations are too voluminous for us to have them all b. Some laws of the previous revelations are already abrogated by the latest one such as marriage, etc. c. Laws intended for the later generations make no sense to the people of old because they are impractical and merely hypothetical in their times d. Succession of Prophets one after another and sometimes contemporaries; the later prophet can correct whatever went wrong and may introduce a new set of rules in addition to the previous ones. e. Finally, the last revelation has to be protected because there will be no more prophet/s to come to correct any mistakes/misunderstandings, ect. So God has to preserve it because those people on whom the uncorrupted message did not reach can complain that the reason they went astray is because the uncorrupted message didnt reach them and that it would be unjust for God to punish them for their misguidance. In the beginning of my opening, I pointed out that this topic is NOT good for L at all because how would he deny the Islamic objections about the authenticity of the bible when I have not yet put my objections? I thought that L could overcome that problem because he claims to be an exMuslim; he must have known what they are. However, what L has done, as I have expected, was ATTACK A STRAW MAN; he misrepresented the Islamic belief about the bible and attacks that INCORRECT idea. These are his EXTREMELY ERRONEOUS suppositions: 1. That the whole bible is corrupted this is not the Muslim belief at all 2. That the whole is the exact Taurat and Injeel mentioned in the Quran This is not true in any way, shape or form in Islam 3. That Muslims should not make any distinction between Gods revelation based on Quranic verse which he cited - Folks, this is not true at all. The Quran clearly says in Baqarah 2:285 in the last part of the ayah kullun amana biAllahi wamalaikatihi wakutubihi warusulihi la nufarriqu bayna ahadin min rusulihi Translated as Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, "We make no distinction between one another of His
Messengers" So we make no distinctions between the Messengers, and NOT the revelations So L here has made a BLATANT ERROR about his Quranic exegesis about the ayah, hence misrepresented Islamic faith and attacked a STRAW MAN. On the other hand, these are what Muslims believe folks: 1. The bible does contain the original teachings of the Prophets such as Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, ect. 2. The Original Taurat is not the Pentateuch, and L admitted it, but it does contain some of the original teachings but it does contain errors and absurdities too such as repentant God and riding on a cherub, ect BLASPHEMY AND MYTHOLOGY. 3. The NT is not the Injeel revealed to Jesus by God because it was written many decades after him. 4. Muslims should believe what remains intact in the bible because they were originally from God but also reject the false teachings in it esp. the errors because God DOESNT ERR. Thanks for bench for reply.
04-28-10, 13:08
#30
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Item #14
Thanks, WJ, for yet another engaging post! And thanks to Bench for the help in posting it. That brings to a close the rebuttals part of the debate. By now, people who have been following closely must have been swayed one way or the other. The audience and the judges should have a good idea now which position is stonger. We now enter the final items of the debate -- the Conclusion. This part ties in loose ends and summarizes what have been covered. It will give you a mental map of what transpired but in each debater's viewpoint. It is also an opportunity to sway the still undecided. Because of the importance of this part, why don't we give WJ the opportunity to post his final post? Let us wait until he is back and let him post his final post. As designed, WJ will make the conclusion first; then L will make the very last post. Abangan!
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646
Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Thread Tools
Display Modes #31
04-29-10, 18:23
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Conclusion by WJ
I begin by mentioning the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
I thank you folks for your comments and concerns at the gallery. I would like to thank our moderator Ateo who is always impartial in his decisions. During the conclusion period, we are supposed to evaluate or review what has been presented during the presentations and the rebuttals. We are not supposed to bring new issues here because there will be no chance for the other party to reply. I just pointed this out because there are many points which I raised during my presentation and rebuttals which are not given logical answers; Im afraid that they will be brought here and I dont have the chance to response to them. I expect L not to do that anyway. Now let me summarized the points which have been presented and discussed in this debate, and well see/evaluate who, between L and I got the upper hand. Folks, the title/topic of this debate is: Resolved: That the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction What are the Muslims assertions about the bible and are they based on facts or mere fiction?
1. The Muslims assertion about the OT Torah called Pentateuch is not the original Taurat revealed by God to Prophet Moses pbuh Is this a fact or fiction? Answer:- According to L the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but by unknown people, because he didnt mention any name except for Joshua which yet to be proven by scholars, so L is saying to us that this claim is a clear FACT!
2. Muslims assert that the New Testament is not the Injeel revealed by God to Prophet Jesus pbuh Fact or fiction? Answer:- According to Ls admission, Jesus pbuh never read, saw, and recited the New Testament. This is because the New Testament was written by people after Jesus ascension to heaven. Most of the authors of the NT were not eye-witnesses to Jesus such as Paul, Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews whoever he is, and others. Therefore, Muslims assertion about the NT is, according to Ls admission is a clear FACT. 3. Internal proof of corruption - Muslims assert that there is a theological problem with the bible such as God is reported to have REPENTED for the evil which the people did. God doesnt repent because He DOESNT ERR. L has never given us any logical explanation on how could an All-knowing and perfect God REPENT. L even misunderstood the point because he thought that I was objecting about the term EVIL in the verse, so what he attacked therefore was a straw man. This point alone folks is enough for us to reject the bible because if what it teaches to us is an IDIOT god because he seems to have made a mistake, or at least he has a weakness, then we have no sane reason to accept that teaching. The TRUE GOD is all-knowing and perfect, NOT an IDIOT one. 4. Another internal proof of corruption - The logical problem in 2chronicles 21:20 and Chr. 22:2 which tells us that THE SON IS 2 YEARS OLDER THAT THE FATHER. There is no way L can reconcile this problem so he merely said that it is a copyists error. This proves that the bible that we have today contains error/s. Why does it continue to be written and rewritten in the bible today? The reason is that they cant simply decide which is erroneous because they dont have the original. The codices siniticus, vaticanus, and dead sea scroll are not originals folks. They are ancient copies of the adulterated bibles. L pointed out that there are verses of the present bible today that cant be found in those scrolls and codices such as the 1john 5:7-8. There lots of verses which I can present related to this but I selected the 1john 5:7-8 issue because it is very important as it is directly connected to the TRINITARIAN doctrine. L said that the errors which I pointed out do not affect Christian doctrines. Well, they do because we have now proven that verses are inserted to the so-called word of God in order to support a new doctrine, the trinity. Ancient prophets didnt teach that God is father, son and holy ghost this is very similar to myth/pagan ideas ( Zeus the father or supreme God, Hercules, the son who is God and man at the same time because his mother was a mortal being. Read roman myth folks, youll know).
5. The issue on Jesus and the people happened to be in two places at the same time : Matthew 27:44-45 and John 19:14, and ark 15:25 is this possible at all? The answer is BIG NO! L searched the
internet and gave us a MAY BE answer because his source says that PROBABLY they are written in different times. Is this what we mean by AUTHENTIC, probably?? another proof of corruption.
6. Another proof of corruption Judas bought a field after his death in Act 1:18. Is this possible? BIG NO!!! Do you remember my objection about Deut. 34 Moses pbuh is said to have written an event after his death? The answer is of course NO so L said it was Joshua who wrote it simply because dead people couldnt write. But here comes Judas buying a field after his death as clearly mentioned in the verse: Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. in order to reconcile this clear problem, L told us that the SINGULAR MASCULINE PRONOUNS in the verse is the PRIESTS which is a BIG JOKE. Look at what will happen if we agree to Ls answer. Now THE PREISTS purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, THEY burst asunder in the midst, and all THEIR bowels gushed out. there is simply no escape in this problem folks.
7. What was actually written on Jesus head, the four NT writers who are supposed to have been inspired by the holy spirit cant agree upon. L said it is because they were written in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. Well, if we translate words, we dont have to cut or delete some, secondly and most importantly is that it isFALSE because we know that the original NT was written in GREEK.
8. L admitted that 1john 5:7-8 and Mark 16:9-20 are interpolations; not part of the most ancient manuscripts. So how did they come to be part of the supposed word of God if they are genuinely not part of it? this is a clear proof of corruption in the bible.
9. After knowing that there are indeed interpolations in the bible that we have today, how confident are we to accept some books in it having UNKNOWN AUTHORS?The books of Chronicles, Kings, especially Hebrews are highly in question. How could be sure that their writers were inspired by God when the books which bear the name of their authors contain interpolations in order to support a new theology?
10. Do we, Muslims, reject the entire bible? The answer is no. We filter the errors of the bible through the Quran and reason/logic. If L wants to challenge me about the Quran, he is welcome to do so; it could be our next debate. But even if we disregard the Quran, the many points above which I pointed out in this debate is proof enough that the bible has been corrupted and the bible that we have today still contains traces of corruptions by, according to L, early church fathers; their quotations were inserted in the text and fool people by making them believe that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God.
L has tried his best to defend his bible but he failed miserable as I see it. He tried to cover the problem by bringing RED HERRINGS and
ATTACKING A STRAW MAN. If I have to relate this debate in to a chess game, it is as if L tried to attack my pawns without giving any care about his King being in CHECKMATE! In answer to the issue of this debate, I believe that based on the unanswered objections, the Muslims assertion about the bibles authenticity is a CLEAR FACT! BTW, dont get me wrong folks; my conclusion is based merely on what has been presented and discussed in this debate; L may not have the enough preparation for this debate. There may be many of the Christian apologists here who could do a better defense. I am always ready for any debate challenge. Finally, thanks to the impartial Moderator Ateo, to my brother bench and to Gab Bustamente for making this debate continue despite for my ban in the forum. I hope that we learn something from this debate. WhiteJewel
04-30-10, 06:12
#32
"L"
Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all My conclusion will be short because i think the readers and judges are the one who should make their own conclusions. For me, the Islamic assertion that the bible is corrupted have been falsified 1. All arguments are biased and based only on faith. Everything is just because the quran said so. No hard evidence 2. His Arguments backfire their own book(unknown authors/contradictions/not seen by Muhammad). Errors are not enough to prove something, it just means you dont know the explanation 3. He was contradicting his own statements, (does that mean its corrupted?) 4. He is talking about the same thing from his cross exam, presentation, rebuttals and conclusion(as predicted). Having one proof for your accusation is not enough especially when it is refuted. He didnt wanna engage me in the rebuttals
5. Since he said the corruption was before Jesus(contrary to Ibn Khazem who said after), This is like saying Jesus had no purpose as a prophet instead his Injil got lost ergo another cycle of corruption. We can see clearly he evaded this agrument 6. These questions were not clearly answered: --Why Allah protects the Quran and not the former revelations? --Was the corruption Allahs will or against His will? 7. I tried to explain my best his lone argument one by one but he avoided explaining most of mine especially the Quran/hadith/hard evidences that proves the Bible is authentic, instead insist the refuted. We never saw him explain the quran verses I posted especially this hadith: Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434 Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying:I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." How can this be if his single quran verse that talks about corruption says, "stoning" part is also corrupted. Muhammad believed in the Torah, He did not say I believe in some in thee. If this is corrupted, a man who swears in a corrupted book is a corrupted man. This lone hadith proves it already and by WJ avoiding to explain it Now ask yourselves why you rather believe Ibn Khazem? Muslims, now do you understand what I was saying? That WJ only challenges one on one to avoid the real issue. Hes not after the truth, he wants to turn the table, and he doesnt want to be on the defensive because he has no answer. This also proves that threads are better than one on one, they have no choice but to answer and there are no limitations. Thank you everyone, hope we all learned something from this. I dedicate this to the greater glory of my God however readers view it. the Bible is authentic. Jesus is God, Islam is false. Amen
04-30-10, 10:25
#33
Ateo
There, my friends and beloved audience, ends the debate. I thank you for your interest and attention and hope to see you again in the next debate. Hey, wait! There is still the even more thrilling part -- the Judging! For the very first time in BARM, this debate has official judges. We shall now know the official result of this debate. But first here are the most important points: the result will refer only to the debating skills of the debaters and not on the veracity of the debaters' religions. So, if one party wins, it means that he has better skills, not that his religion is automatically the truer one. And on the judges, the judge, who is an adherent of Religion A, if he renders judgment in favor of debater from Religion B does not mean that he is a traitor to his religion. Remember, we are judging debating skills, not religions. This is how the results will be released: a. There is an odd number of judges. b. The first judge is given also his 48 hours to make his first post. Subsequent judges are given their courtesy 48 hours each, although they are encouraged to post faster. c. I will simply give the official tally at the end.
__________________
05-01-10, 08:09
#34
Ateo
Alrighttttttttttttttttttt, here we are... Without much ado, let me ask Judge #1 to post his decision.
__________________
05-01-10, 14:26
#35
element_115x
Shalom Pax Atheist/Luciferian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Terra Posts: 1,667 Quote from: Ateo Alrighttttttttttttttttttt, here we are... Without much ado, let me ask Judge #1 to post his decision.
Ehem...ehem... Being that it's confusing as to how to tackle this debate in that, knowing that we're supposed to base from whether the view of IbnKhazem is fictional or not, i instead opted to look on the grounds as to why Ibn-Khazem thought that way, and that's how i got to my decision. I draw in favor of White Jewel.However, by saying so, it doesn't mean i favor the Quran over the Bible. I'm taking this at face value, regardless of any doctrinal implications for the two religions concerned. I was convinced by WJ that the compiled Bible as we know it today does contain some irregularities (i wouldn't call it outright corruption) in terms of having unknown authors, conflicting passages (resulting in contradictions that would require apologistic work to surmount), the influence of pagan mythologies, and of course the way the Church Fathers-Nicean Councils behaved, among others... Furthermore, with regards to God being the 'Omni-All' that we've come to normally know, i think it would've benefitted us all if there was an explanation about the scope of just how all-knowing/powerful God really is according to Christianity and Islam... done in some other thread, maybe. I think this is where the core of the debate rests on... unless we want to include socio-political agendas, that is. As a case in point and in my opinion, it would seem 'abrogation' would be a natural thing to happen as cultures evolve and improve on itself -(populations naturally grow, and therefore the dynamics of societies are in for changes). For God believers this would not necessarily entail having a God that changes it's mind. This would actually entail a God that DOES KNOW and is aware of how societies would evolve to face new norms (e.g. on sibling marriage and copulation) and do something about it. To point out, even Jesus himself modified/improved the Ten Commandments during his time. But of course i'm not saying such changes are for all aspects of society. There are backbones that stay resolute -- society or not. People shouldn't necessarily view this as having a God that changes it's mind. HE is sovereign after all. It could only mean that people can't definitively assess how God acts using our puny minds. And just to point out, this is what i really find troubling in a belief on a God who doesn't necessitate for changes and adaptations --things that
would impugn upon an idealized view of God -- which Mohammed (PBUH) seemed to have made a fixture of within an unchanging framework of a 'Revelation by Memorization'. I don't know if i'll make some sense here by saying i believe that the only thing constant in the universe is change. ____________________________________ Having said that, i wished White Jewel had included in his presentation the 'Q' document, the Sumerian sources, the anomaly between 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37, and how a Homeric 'slip-up' occurred on Mark 3:16-17, among others in support of Khazem's view. With L, i hope he gets an opportunity to disprove why people have to take Muhammad's word for having received a Final Revelation from God seriously, and view this as just purely anecdotal that got blown out of proportions -- given the socio-political situation back then. L could make points then also on how the issues regarding the Uthmanic Recension (in lieu of the various other codices that were eliminated during those times) could figure in as relates to these kinds of debate topics. But admittedly, i'm quite disappointed somehow because WJ didn't try to answer why Allah protects the Quran and not the former revelation; or whether the said 'corruptions' were willed by Allah or not. But then again, that could've been resolved if we know the scope of God's AllKnowingness' as i ranted above.
That's it for me, Cheers!
__________________ "Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature." Carl Sagan
05-01-10, 23:37
#36
Ateo
Thank you very much, Element_115x. I am certainly honored that you have participated in this debate as a judge. The score, of course, stands at 1-0 in favor of WJ. I will now call on Judge #2. He is Pooch, a keen student of logic; and a pure, chaste Christian, he he he. An entrepreneur (mucho dinero), he said he is also busy right now filing his tax return; but he definitely took the time to sort out the debate in his mind.
__________________
05-03-10, 11:45
#37
Ateo
Well, well, well, Pooch sent his regrets; he could not post right away because he is still studying the debate (it is that difficult? he he he). Besides, he is also making a complex computation for their taxes (a problem that is only unique to the rich, he he he). He will post asap. In the meantime, let me call on Judge #3 to post his decision. He is a well respected Christian and somebody I hold in high regard in terms of fairness, among other traits.
__________________
05-04-10, 01:04
#38
Xavier
tambay (stuck) Catholic Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,543
Because L is in the affirmative, the burden of proof is on his side. The other notable thing that gave me pause is the definition of corrupted which was never defined before the debate. Given this, I scored it a tie in terms of judging criteria given by the moderator, Ateo. However, in terms of proving the debate statement, winner has to be WJ. Two reasons.
As WJ correctly pointed out L was going after strawmen. However, this was basically because of how the debate was set-up. The Muslim side should have been asked to define first their belief before the Christian side was made to define the Muslim belief in terms of the Bible. L spent a good part of his debate going after strawmen instead of using it to strengthen his position. Second reason is that the definition of corrupted was never defined and agreed by both sides. Because it was never defined, WJ made convincing statements regarding the Bible's inerrancy. However, the Word of God as a bad source of doctrine and its corruption is not proved by these kind of errors, but WJ makes good points against the doctrine of inerrancy. If the word corrupted could have been defined previously, this might have helped L's position. I congratulate both debators for a job well done. I would like to extend special mention to L because he did very well in a very difficult position. I would never have accepted the affirmative side framed the way it is. Again, my choice does not in anyway say that one side says the truth only who made better use of the resources available.
__________________ Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Last edited by Xavier; 05-04-10 at 01:11.
05-04-10, 09:16
#39
Ateo
Thank you, Xavier, for your decision! Your perspective deepend my understanding on the need for careful formulation of the debate question. Thank you very much for your advices. I agree with you that the two debaters have done an excellent job in this debate. Now, folks, this is how I will score Xavier's decision. He actually made two segments of this decision -- the first one is "in terms of the judging criteria" and the other "in terms of proving the debate statement". I will split the 1.0 point allocated to him into two. In the first segment, it was a tie so L and WJ got 0.25 each. In the second segment, WJ won so he got the full 0.5. So, Xavier's decision is counted as WJ: 0.75 pt. and L: 0.25 pt. The running score is: WJ: 1.75 "L": 0.25
__________________
05-04-10, 09:25
#40
Ateo
For the next judge, let me call on my favorite humanist and a voice of wisdom in the Atheist board, Unrealdummy. There are five judges in this debate and Unrealdummy is the third one.
__________________
05-06-10, 01:49
#41
unrealdummy
humanist Atheism, Freethinkers Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Hometown Posts: 797
First of all, I'm pleased to be one of the panels. Ill be drawing my conclusion from what I understand of what supposed to be the main focus of the subject that is That the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction. To me, this seems to be some sort of a positive negative and a negative positive. If we would be taking this subject as it is then it would be something like L is supposed prove that it is not true that Muslims believe the bible is corrupted. It means, the default negative assumption is that Muslims already believe that the bible is corrupted, and the affirmative side should prove otherwise and the negative side would be rejecting and denying the proposition. If the debate topic had been about The Bible is corrupted or The Bible is not authentic, this could have been an easy task for me as WJ clearly
gave very strong evidences that prove corruptions in the Bible. Unfortunately for WJ, that is not the case. This isn't about Bible's corruption itself, this is about what the Quran says about the Bible if it is corrupted or not. L gave strong evidences by citing verses from the Quran that establishes Muslims belief in the Bibles credibility. WJ shouldnt have focused on destroying the credibility of the Bible but rather focus on destroying Ls establishing arguments. What WJ had been giving are the reasons why Muslims shouldnt believe in the Bible and not a proof that rejects or denies that the Muslim belief system, or Islam, believes in the bible. However, I really felt lost when L said I think the topic here is Biblical Authenticity. Moreover, L defended Bibles contradiction which only deepened my confusion one more notch. Both the debaters really made this task too hard for me. I was expecting WJ to give verses from the Quran that says Bible is corrupted and explain why the verse that L cited is not in contradiction with that. WJ maybe should have focused on Baqarah 75 and Baqarah 78 and from there, elaborate and establish his arguments to reject and deny Ls claim. But that didnt happen, thus failing to defeat Ls establishing arguments. Honestly, this debate had been some sort of who's on the right track. Im giving L a score of 85 and WJ a score of 80. BTW, I had fun reading those Yo Momma lines. Peace and cheers.
Last edited by unrealdummy; 05-06-10 at 02:14.
05-06-10, 11:58
#42
Ateo
Thank you very much, Unrealdummy, for this very insightful analysis. You brought focus on how the topic could have been argued better. The issue of who keeping on track has also set me thinking hard. Unrealdummy decision is in favor of "L". The running score at this stage is: WJ: 1.75 "L": 1.25 It requires a cumulative score of more than 2.5 to win this debate. WJ needs just another full point from either of the last two judges to win. "L" needs a full point and tie from our two judges to win. Abangan. I will now call on the next judge Pooch, the taxpayer, to render judgment.
__________________
05-07-10, 11:55
#43
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Quote from: indomitable_soldier Good day I already finished reading naku ang haba. By the way sorry sa pangyayaring ang infraction kay WJ ay nakaapekto sa daloy ng debate buti na lang at mahusay ang Moderator. ... kung ako ang mag score. 90 kay L. at 70 kay WJ.
Salamat naman, Mod IS, sa inyong matamis na mga salita, he he he. Pero, ito pa rin ang exclusive thread eh, at iba ang Gallery thread. Kindly transfer your post doon sa Gallery (and you can delete this particular post of mine). Hinihintay po natin ang isang official judge to post his decision. Si Pooch po iyon.
__________________
05-08-10, 16:25
#44
Pooch
Theist Stoicism Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Sa Malayong Kanluran Posts: 7,777 Judge Pooch
Magandang araw sa inyong lahat. Isa nga pala ako sa napiling hukom ng ating moderator na si Ateo. Una sa lahat ay hihingi ako ng paumanhin sa na-late kong post dahil sa ilang personal issues...Ganumpaman, ika nga ng ating kasabihan, Huli man at magaling, naihahabol din Without further ado, eto ang aking judgment: Kung ako ang tatanungin, ibibigay ko ang verdict ng debate in favor of L. Ngunit ayon sa criteria na naibigay ni Ateo, si WJ ang nanalo
debatewise. Heto ang details: Ang tema ay singlinaw ng araw sa silangan: Resolved: That the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction Ang inaasahan ko kay L ay itatayo niya ang temang ito sa pamamagitan ng paghahain ng argumento na tutol ang ating mga kaibigang Muslim na corrupted ang Biblya. Therefore, dito nakatutok ang aking mga mata at hindi sa mga side-issues na pinaguusapan nila. Aba'y pati ba naman freewill eh gustong pagusapan?! So walang puntos sa akin yun ano..Heto ang karne ng affirmative constructive ni L.
Quote from: L Quran(Yusuf Ali): 21:7 Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message It says if you dont realize that this revelation(quran) is inspired, ask those who possess the message before this 10:37 And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds Verification (sometimes it says confirmation). It did not say Restoration. All of Allahs books should agree with each other (but in reality they dont, this will be explained later) 4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray. 29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." 10:94 If thou were in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. If you have doubt in the Quran, go to the book that was before it because the Quran is a verification/confirmation or a supplement. If they indeed believe that the Bible is corrupted then Allah is telling you to read a false book. More: 2:136, 4:47, 5:44, 6:91, 6:92, 5:68 Hadith Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434 Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying:I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)."
In this hadith, Muhammad swore in the Torah saying, I believe in thee and in Him Who revelead thee. Why would a prophet swear on something that is corrupted? You are probably wondering by now why the Quran and all scriptures do not support the corruption while muslims still believe so. Early Muslims and Many great Muslim teachers DID NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted. Ali al-Tabari, Bukhari, ( gathered the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78) Al-Mas'udi Amr al-Ghakhiz, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina Al-Ghazzali (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn- Khazem but did not accept his teachings). Ibn-Khaldun (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.) Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced." Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." Ibn-Khazem (1604), was the first one to accuse the Bible to be corrupted. This was to defend Islam from Christianity when he stumbled upon many contradictions with the Quran and Bible. "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His accusation was not based on evidence but only his personal faith to protect the Quran Source: Christians Answer Muslims, Gerhard Nehls, 1992 Can We Trust the Bible?, J Wijngaard Quran, A. Yusuf Ali Kitab al-Asnam, Ibn al-Kalbi, 1952 Sahih al Bukhari, 6th ed. 1986 The Islamic Christian Controversy, LCA 1996
Wala akong paki-alam sa dead sea scrolls, sa biblya, sa will ni Allah at iba pang palamuti ni L. Hence, inaasahan ko si WJ na dito magfofocus at ito ang talagang bibirahin at hindi ang iba pang side issues. Remember always na nasa debate tayo at hindi po ito "preaching time" nor "lecture time". This is time for arguing! Hence, pagdating sa cross examination ni WJ, eto ang inaantay kong tatanungin niya. Such as, sino si Yusuf-Ali? Ano ang kinalaman niya rito? Bakit kaya ito ginamit na reperensya ni L? Tama ba yung quotation sa Hadith? atbp. Nung unang beses nagcross-examine si WJ, nagustuhan ko ang 'testing the waters' set of questions niya. Aaminin kong ganun din ang style ko sa pakikipagtalakayan eh. (oops..) Kaya lang, kailangan siyang mag-ingat sa paggamit nito, lest ma-off topic ang usapan. Kaya kailangang i-martilyo natin ang tema at ito ay yaong claim ni L na hindi daw sinasabi ng mga muslim na corrupted ang biblya. Isang side comment ko lang: Sana kahit isang question lang eh tinira ni WJ ang paliwanag ni L ukol sa talata ng Koran (21:7, 10:37, 4:136,
29:46 and 10:94) o kaya naman ay yung tropa ni Ali al-Tabari. Sapagkat leaving these stuff unchallenged strengthens L's claims at least in the debate, methinks. But who knows, it's still too early to tell from this point pero lumalabas na ang unang set ng cross-ex ni WJ ay irrelevant sa topic. Hindi nito nabuwag ang stand ni L. In response, sumagot lamang si L at ang mga naging sagot niya'y direct to the point at sufficient sa scope ng debate. Good job both debaters. But the pendulum of reason starts to shift sa panig ni L dahil sa "passive" second cross-examination ni WJ. I'm starting to get worried from this point na baka hindi makahabol si WJ. Medyo malayo ang tirada eh..Pero sabi ko sa sarili ko, "Tingnan natin. Baka may punto siya at magagamit pa rin niya ang mga impormasyong masasagap natin rito"... But then I suddenly read this and parang biglang nagkatotoo ang kinatatakutan ko:
Quote from: wj I agree with what he said because what is on stake is the primary and fundamental source of Christianity, the bible; if the bible which is believed to be the word of God is unreliable, then how could we rely on other Christian sources?
OH NO!! Hindi naman natin pinaguusapan ang reliability ng biblya eh, hindi ba? Ke reliable ang biblya ke unreliable, ano bang pakialam natin?I mean, bilang judge ah, naiisip ko agad eh:"Sus, sa Diyos LANG pala galing ang Biblya eh, ano bang pakialam ko dun? Buti sana kung ang tinitira natin kung totoo bang sinasabi ng mga Muslim na corrupted ang biblya o hindi eh. The bible may be the most corrupted, evil, satanic, deadly book has ever written but it will never budge L's position unless assertion ito ng Muslim. Pero bakit ang reliability ng biblya ang gustong pagusapan ni WJ? Inihihiwalay niya ata ang isyu which will be interpreted by L later na ganun nga (pero pilit ibinabalik ni L ang kumpletong tema).. Now that's an objective statement ah. Hindi porke't Kristiano ako kinakampihan ko si L. Nadismayado talaga ako sa umpisang sentence ni WJ. Again, hindi pa tapos ang laban pero naguumpisa ng mag-slip away sa kamay ni WJ ang debate. Pero bumawi siya ng bahagya, I tell you. Nagustuhan ko ang paragraph niyang ito which I believe casted kahit papaano a question mark sa panig ni L:
Quote from: wj The topic seems awkward to L because he is supposed to tell us first what are the Muslims stand why we dont believe that the Torah of Moses and the injeel of Jesus are his Pentateuch and New Testament respectively, but how can he deny the accusations/allegations of the Muslims when I havent put forward those allegations/accusations yet? But since because L claims to be an ex-Muslim, I presumed that he must have known what those allegations/accusations are.
Very good point. Now I'm expecting you to confirm or deny L's affirmative stand above and at the same time erect your position.
However, when I read his opening, I didnt see him presenting those allegations/accusations. He merely relied on his personal opinion about the subject. If we are asked about the correctness of certain claims, we have to know first what the claims are, why are they true or false and what is/are the bases. In a formal debate like this one, personal opinion doesnt really count.
WJ continues to impress me as he exploits his pagiging "llamado". I agree with what he said and he will earn points sa "debate personality" category sa akin. However, may matinding question ako sa constructive niya and probably this deserves a separate thread upang linawin niya ang stand niya rito.
Now, those are Quranic claims and they are true only if Prophet Muhammad pbuh is a true
Prophet of God. The Question is, are those claims supported by factual evidences? If yes, then it proves that the Quranic claim is not a fiction but a FACT and at the same time proves he was a TRUE MESSENGER OF GOD
Biglang nagsalubong ang kilay ko pagkatapos kong mabasa ito. Perhaps I misunderstand him pero eto ang dating sa akin and bilang judge, dito ko siya hahatulan: Argument #1 1. If Mohammad is a true prophet, the previous revelations are changed. 2. Muhammad is a true prophet. 3. Therefore, the previous revelations are changed. Sounds good? Pero parang circular ito ayon sa pagkakasabi niya: Argument #2 1. If the changes are supported by historical facts, the changes are true. 2. If the changes are true, Mohammad is a true prophet. 3. The changes are supported by historical fact. 4. Therefore, the changes are true. 5. Therefore, Mohammad is a true prophet. Now may question ako bigla dun sa premise 2 ng argument#2 niya. Ang sinasabi ba niya'y 2a. If Mohammad is a true prophet, the changes are true? Because if it is, then nagcommit si WJ ng affirming the consequent fallacy. Naku, kailangang liwanagin ni WJ ito! Alin ang totoo: Ang premise 2 or ang premise 2a?Since unclear ito sa stand niya, I will deduct points sa "Logical argumentation" category niya. Moving onto WJ's sections, gusto niyang i-argue na sinasabi ng mga Muslim na corrupted ang Biblya (hindi nga lang lahat). Sinuportahan niya ito sa pagsasabi na may pagbabago nga pero does his premises follow the conclusion? Sa unang section ay duda ako.
Quote from: WJ ...which tells us that they were not written by Prophet Moses himself but by people other [unknown] than him...
therefore corrupted na ang OT?

Quote from: WJ ...Jesus never read, recited or seen the NT.
therefore corrupted na ang NT? At best, maaaring sabihin ni WJ na different ang tinutukoy ng Koran or ang mga sinasabi ng Muslim pero I cannot see the link kung bakit magiging corrupted eh. Pagdating sa section #2, I will award points kay WJ sa evidence category. He gave good points na hindi sinagot ni L. He gave valid points. Good job WJ! Basically, gusto niyang i-argue: 1. If uncorrupted, the book has no errors. 2. Muslim (siya) says the book has errors. 3. Therefore, the book is corrupted. Pagdating sa section #3, I think this is irrelevant sa debate. Kasi mga bible scholars pala ang nagsasabi ng mga ito eh as evident sa sinabi ni WJ:
Quote from: wj It has been found out by bible scholars...
Sana man lang, sinabi niya na mga muslim ang nagsabi nito and then he
said na sinabi ito ng Koran. Nasan talata? Kahit reference lang sana nilagay niya. Remember ang topic mga kaibigan ah: That the muslim assertion... Kaya hindi ko pinansin ng ganun kabigat ang bahaging ito. Pasensya na po. Moving on sa cross examination ni L naman, ANDAMI RIN NIYANG unrelated na tanong. Hence, I will discredit him sa compliance to the rules category pero good thing naman at sinagot ito ng diretso ni WJ. But sifting the meat of the questions, eto ang nakikita kong importanteng tanong ni L eh.
Quote from: L 3. When (before or after Muhammad / approximate date if possible), how, what, who, corrupted it? This must be clarified. Details pls. I never heard of a definite answer for this 4. Is the corruption of the bible by Allahs will or against His will? Either the 2 happened. Please choose one
Sa question 3, sumagot si WJ ng "before and after"... Not bad, at least he is consistent. Sa question 4, sumagot si WJ ng "false dichotomy". Whoa! Hold on there.. This cannot be a false dichotomy because either it is or it isn't. He tried to insert another proposition to split the two but it means that the rebellious people's will is NOT Allah's will nor it is against Allah's will. Kuha ninyo? His answer is neither is nor isn't. Basically, he's saying it is NOT A nor it is not-A. Why not just say it is not-A? It is simpler, isn't it? Dalawa lang naman talaga eh: Either kagustuhan ni God or hindi kagustuhan ni God. Aba'y ang sagot eh kagustuhan ng iba. Aba'y si God nga ang tinatanong eh, ipinasa naman ni WJ sa iba (rebellious people). Nyaks! I will put a huge deduction sa logical points ni WJ. Now tatanungin ninyo ako, eh ikaw Pooch, anong isasagot mo kung ikaw nasa kalagayan ni WJ? Suppose may masamang nangyari. Ginusto ba ito ni God or hindi? I wouldn't blame it on other people for the question is about God. Right? Hence, I would bite the bullet and say na ginusto ito ni God.. Now that will be a direct answer. Pero syempre may follow-up question: Is God the source of Sin? Aaaahhhh..... Back to the debate!! lolz.. Balikan ko yung second cross examination ni L. Isang importanteng tanong rito na hindi nasagot ng maayos ni WJ ay ito:
2. How can you determine which parts o the Bible can be trusted other than the Quoran? Q2 Ans: I clearly said that the Quran confirms what has been left intact of the previous revelations, which means that there still traces of the original teachings of God in it such as Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29 and some more. So stop attacking straw man its a clear fallacy bro.
Other than the KORAN nga eh! doh!

Islam doesnt teach that people could be saved only if they have read the scripture. This is not the Islamic position at all. What Islam teaches is that God knows everything, He is just, Loving and Merciful. Everyone is judged by God according to what he have understood and did. The bible still contains the most important message of God to man such as Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, ect. This is enough for anyone to believe in and do righteous deeds and he will be saved. Therefore, even if the bible contains corrupted texts and absurdities, people can still be saved by adhering to the belief about the oneness of God and doing righteous deeds before the advent of Prophet Muhammad pbuh and the Quran.
The problem for the Christians now is that despite the clear evidence of the biblical corruption, they still persist on their blind belief of the bible at it is an inerrant word of God In this situation, they will be punished by God because the truth has come to them now but they deliberately rejected it. What they need to do is accept the incorruptible, the last and final revelation of God, and that is the Quran.
Alam niyo kung ako si WJ? Ganito ang isasagot ko: Walang ibang paraan maliban sa Koran. Tapos! Yun ang sagot...Andami niyang sinabi pero kumbaga sa tinapay, mas marami ang pampaalsa. Pati isyu ng kaligtasan eh nadamay, hindi naman yun ang tanong. Then ang sagot niya sa tanong sa free will, sa halip na i-discuss yung sinabi ni L, tinuya lang niya.
Quote from: wj This is a ridiculous doctrine.
Why? Dahil sinabi niya. I am really hoping for more substance sa post ni WJ pero wala eh. Kung ako ah, either put substance or not reply at all sa portion na ito kasi sayang ang word count na limited lang no. I mean, instead of repeating what the opponent said and then saying "This is a ridiculous doctrine" afterwards, mas hindi nakakapanghinayangan kung pagusapan natin kung bakit kaya sinabi ito ni L. Hindi ba? Now we go to the rebuttals and this is where the debate turned to L's favor. And probably because of the weak constructive na presentation ni WJ kaya nawala sa kanya ang pagiging "llamado". Now he has a lot to catch up. All the more, nananatili pa ring hindi nagagalaw ang barkada ni Yusuf-Ali at ni Ali-ar-Tabari.
Quote from: L Still unanswered, HOW people will know which part of the Bible is right or wrong without the Quoran? Still unanswered, HOW people will know which part of the Bible is right or wrong without the Quran? You just said some of Gods words are still in it. I know. Its Allahs fault because he left those souls for hundreds of years reading a book mixed with His word and fabrication like a gamble. So its a matter of luck if you are reading the good part. When I asked, Why Allah protects the Quran but not the Bible? His answers werent clear: - The Taurat and the Injeel were not corrupted because their messages are still preserved in the Quran - Allah did protect all His revelations but not the texts - The word of God is verbal(cant be corrupted) while the texts(can be corrupted) - The Bible still contains unadulterated teachings of the original ...Why didnt Allah thought of making people to memorize the Bible the first place? Allah was wrong for relying on peoples memory to preserve His words and not protecting the texts. He should have protected both...
This is a very nice point na nalantad sa debateng ito. And I would say na WJ has the ability to answer this but did not have the chance. And again, he reinforced what was mentioned in the affirmative constructive which is good. He then mentioned what the muslims said about the previous revelations, again strengthening his affirmative constructive. Almost slam dunk na sa puntong ito pero may tanong ako sa hulihan.
Quote from: L The Bible also teaches, Jesus is the final prophet and those who will come after him are false prophets and their signs and wonders should be tested if it doesn't contradict the scriptures.
Saan ang talata?! Or claim mo lang yan? Importante ito sa debate eh dahil kung maieestablish niya ito, then maaaring marerefute yung argumento ni WJ sa negative constructive niya. Pero walang sinabi si L na
reference eh. Hence, although maganda overall ang rebuttal niya, I will deduct points sa kanya sa "use of evidence" category. Now onto WJ's rebuttal:
Quote from: wj Beforehand I would like to alert the judges and the audience for the progress of this debate based on what I have observed since the beginning; L is trying to sidetrack the issue about the authenticity of the bible to the issue about the Quran and Muslim beliefs. Although I answered very clearly his questions about Islamic beliefs for the sake of transparency and honesty, it is evident that he did not really tackle the real problem which I presented. Why am I saying this? We have atheist members and observers here and they dont believe in both the bible and the Quran. Even if the Quran is proven to be wrong for the sake of argument, that doesnt make the bible authentic or inerrant which is the topic in this debate.
True. But what about the stuff on the affirmative constructive ni L? San na yung komento mo sa tropa ni Yusuf-Ali at ni Al-Ghazzali? Still waiting si Pooch....
Quote from: wj L admits his mistakes about his appeal to the Quran: he tried to use Muslim beliefs to prove that Muslims belief about the bible is not true, but when I told him/asked him that Muslims believe that the Torah and the Injeel were revealed to Moses and Jesus pbuh respectively while your bible is not, he CONFIRMED it by telling us that the Pentateuch were not written by Moses but by other people, and the New Testament is neither read nor recited nor seen by Jesus. Therefore, L attempt to prove the authenticity of the bible thru the Quran miserably FAILED. L also pointed out that some individuals wrote the Pentateuch but never told us who they were. Who really those people are? Nobody knows but God, and I think they were pagans because they described God as though He looks like a legendary Chinese dragon, riding of a cherub, and have repented; these are only true to MYTHOLOGY. He also said that Joshua wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy but notice here folks, these are his own opinion. The alleged Joshua writing is a mere theory and has never been proven by scholars.
Fair enough. WJ rebounds.

L tried to evade my question#4 by saying that it is not the topic of the debate. Well, it is indeed part and parcel of the topic of this debate because I am not only arguing from the Islamic scriptural basis but I also used LOGIC in my objections. He said Bible used centuries ago REGARDLESS of the content L wanted us to accept the bible even we find a clear absurdity in it. Well, we cant accept that folks because an absurdity is not and cannot be attributed to God.
1. If the book contains God repenting and pictured like a legendary chinese dragon, the people who wrote the Pentateuch were pagans because these are only true in mythology. 2. God is pictured that way 3. Therefore, WJ thinks that the unknown authors are pagans. I will then put the implicit argument by WJ...And he needs this in order to keep his ideas intact! 1. If the authors are pagans, they will picture an absurd God and these creep in the Bible. 2. The authors are pagans. 3. Therefore the Bible contains legendary Chinese dragons and a repenting God---which is for WJ, absurd. 1. If the book is absurd (from argument#2), the book is corrupted. 2. The book is absurd. 3. Therefore, the book is corrupted. Now, what can I say?!? Ohh--kaaaay.... Another thing, ang ganda na sana ng pagkakaconstruct eh pero tila may
kulang. Halimbawa:
Quote from: wj He also said that We all know "errors" is a weak proof for corruption well, it is when we are talking about WORDS OF GOD simply because God doesnt err. I dont know of any sane person who believes that God does err This is really a very bad argument for L.
First of all, where did you get the idea that God does not err? Tradition? Yourself? You're experience? Other people's experience? God revealed that to you? God revealed that to prophet Muhammad? Islamic Theology? Presupposition? You did not tell us where. But since WJ pulled this like a rabbit in a hat, I'll consider this his presupposition. I'm not saying that I do not agree with this one ah..Di ko kasi alam kung saan mo nakuha ito eh..Kasi kung ako ang tatanungin, sasabihin ko sa Bible. 1. Assuming God does not err, evidence of errors are strong proof for corruption. 2. There are errors in the Bible. 3. Therefore, the Bible is likely to be corrupted. Anyhow, evidencewise, WJ's use is very good. He used logic and reinforcement of evidence such as the Comma Johanneum and Mark 16:9-20. Bagay na hindi tinackle ni L. Kung ako siguro si L, unang-una kong magiging tanong siguro eh, galing ba sa mga Muslim ang mga ebidensyang yan?! To sum it up, WJ concludes nicely:
Quote from: wj Well, it does because it implies that corruption did really happen to the bible and we cant be sure anymore whether the text that we based our argument is really not an interpolation.
Now as a judge, how can I comment about this?

Quote from: l The Bible was completed 500 years before the Quran was revealed. If someone today wrote a book that contradicts a historical document, the second book would have to be able to prove the older document was false AND also prove its facts were true. The document written at the time of the event would not have to prove itself against a latter document. This is neither logical, rational or true to the principles of the science of history. Merely proving that the older document was not accurate also does not by default mean the newer document is true. It must stand on its own and prove itself. we can see the Quran cannot stand without disproving the Bible while the Bible can stand on its own Make a muslim choose between the Quran or Bible? Quran, because the Quran said the Bible is corrupted. But Quran also says it confirms Bible. Theyll say they believe in some parts. How to know the parts? Using the Quran. Anything that contradicts the Quran is corrupted. The Quran says Muhammad is in the bible, then some parts suddenly became not corrupted. All their arguments are Quran biased. They refuse to get out of their little box and look at all the hard evidence presented
And I think it's cool...Kahit tangent lang sa paksa..hehe!! Pero yaan na ninyo, nagearn naman ng debate personality and style points si L nang sabihin niya ito. I dunno but this made me smile eh, (lol)
Does this mean everything you said is corrupted?
WJ then mentioned in his last rebuttal

Well of course because this debate has a specific topic, so I have to stay on the subject. On the other hand, L has committed a fallacy called RED HERRINGS because he focused on the subject about the Quran while the topic is specific about the bible. What did I say in my first rebuttal folks? I said even if I agree that the Quran is wrong for the sake of argument, that wouldnt prove that the bible is authentic
True but incomplete. Remember that the topic is about

...the muslim assertion
right?! Syempre gagamit tayo ng Koran. And L did that sa affirmative
constructive. Nasan na yung diskusyon ninyo kina kumpareng Yusuf Ali?! Waaaa... I won't comment sa conclusion since concluding remarks na lang naman na yun and no new stuff is presented. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Allllright...Reviewhin natin ah: Criteria a. Logic and Argumentation Techniques - 25% The use of logical constructs to lay down a logical flow of the argument to the desired conclusion. The absence of serious fallacies. b. Use of Evidence - 25% The effective use of supportive evidence and facts in the arguments. The relevance of the data, the quality of the source and proper attribution are key. c. Compliance to the Rules - 25% While the judges can rely on the infraction and comments given by the moderator, they can independently observe the debaters compliance to the debate format and rules. d. Debate personality and style - 25% This include the clarity of presentation and readability of the posts. The debate posts while instructive should also be nice to read. By "personality" it means that delicate balance between agressiveness that is expected of debaters of hot topics and of respectfulness that is the hallmark of effective debates.
L: 80% a. 20 Unclear ang affirmative constructive ni L. The introduction is kinda long. Magandang may intro no pero nahahabaan ako eh. Una kong magiging comment ay para akong nagbabasa ng libro, hindi ng debate. I am finding the main thesis of the post pero hindi ito explicit. Kailangan ko pang halukayin kasi medyo nakabaon. Hence, ang argumentation technique ni L ay hindi ganun kalinaw. Minimize sana ang rhetorical questions sa affirmative constructive. Kinailangan pa ng dalawang cross examination ni WJ upang lumutang ito ng tuluyan pero damage is done at nagdulot ng maraming tangents sa debate. Examples of which ay yung pagkakapresent na magtatanong siya tapos sasagutin niya rin. PERO NASAN YUNG CLAIM?! YUN ANG HINAHANAP KO EH. Specifically, "Why Allah did not protect his book?" or "Allah has corrupted the bible by His will or against His will?" or "Whymuslims quote from the Bible?" will earn just half-points sa akin in argumentation technique...Kaya advice ko for next time, use this sana sparingly. b. 20 Maganda ang ebidensyang inihain ni L pero ikinalulungkot kong ito'y tila ningas kugon. lolz. He should develop the evidences more and more as the debate goes on. Ang nangyari eh isang buhos ang ginawa niya at bagamat nanatiling nakatayo ito hanggang sa hulihan, hindi na siya naghain ng iba pang ebidensya pa bilang sagot kay WJ. Furthermore, ang kanyang sources mainly ay links sa ibang websites which diminishes yung pwersa ng nais niyang sabihin. Sapagkat kinakailangan ko pang hanapin mismo yung source niya at kung alin dun ang talagang argumento. I would appreciate it more sana kung iququote niya mismo yung reference material rather than give the link ng website na gumamit nung reference
material. Picky? Kind of..Pero I dunno, mas scholarly kasi ang dating for me eh. Tsaka yung "the Bible says Jesus is the last prophet"? c. 20 Napagdesisyunan kong bawasan ng 5% ang debate participant sa bawat infraction points niya. Sa kaso ni L, mayroon siyang isa. d. 20 Good job in repeating his point at keeping on track pero para sa letrang c yun. I cannot give him higher than 25% especially sa infraction na nakuha niya. Debating strategy is satisfactory but not elegant. Si WJ ang mas agressive type and kumbaga sa boksing, mas pinapaboran ng judges ang may kontrol ng round. Ipagpalagay nating si Cotto ay si L at si Pacquiao ay si WJ. Parang ganun ang impression ko. Although kung top 10 "clean shots" at "karne" ang paguusapan, mas marami ang kay L, hindi ko siya pwedeng bigyan ng mas mataas na punto sa krayteryang ito kaysa kay WJ dahil si WJ ang mas umaatake at llamado. Si L, patiently waiting for 'power shots'. Ang ibang mga jabs pa niya eh nagmimintis..Iba ang "shadow boxing" (strawman) kaysa sa tunay na laban kasi sa tunay na laban umiilag ang kalaban.lolzhehe..Si WJ naman, may power shots din pero may 'jabs' sa iba't ibang pagkakataon kasi eh. WJ - 85% a. 15 May duda ako sa negative constructive ni WJ as shown above. Hence, mababa ang iskor ko sa kanya sa lohika. Bagamat aminado akong logical siyang tao (at siya mismo'y sinasabi niya ito), as per presentation niya sa debate ay may "butas" akong nakita at hindi airtight ang kanyang tindig nang bigyan siya ng pagkakataon. Una ay sa negative constructive at ang ikalawa naman ay yung 'false dichotomy' issue. b. 25 Maraming ebidensya si WJ. Magmula sa Mark 16:9-20 isyu (sina Stuttgart, Metzger, at Dummelow), sa mga iskolar ng Biblya, even ng mga talata sa koran. c. 20 may ilang reklamo si WJ sa ad hominem pero winalang bahala ko na ito. kung sa bagay, baka nga naman may punto siya sa "appeal to emotion" ni L. hehe. pero may infraction siya eh. kaya bawas puntos. d. 25 Mas mababa ang puntong ibibigay ko kay L kaysa kay WJ dahil mas lively ang tindig ni WJ. He pointed out ng may kagitingan sa language yung awkwardness ng posisyon ni L which exposed his opponent sa isang strawman's position. Although I am really expecting more sanang 'karne', WJ is a good debater than L. Kumbaga sa ulam, ang kay WJ ay may garnish samantalang kay L ay walang gaanong kulay.
Pooch
__________________ Debate Resume: 1. Stoicism and Christianity 2. Existence of God Moderatorship Resume: 1. Salvation of Angels 2. SolaScriptura 3. Ibong Mandaragit 4. Church of Jesus Hindi sapat ang makumbinsi ka intellectually that God exists. Kundi dapat ay maconvert ka sa karanasan ng power ng Dios.
05-09-10, 05:19
#45
Ateo
Thank you, Pooch, for a detailed, incisive, and very instructive analysis of the debate. It was that level of commitment that we expected from you. Now, guys, I would score Pooch's decision in the following manner. He favored WJ when, he concluded in bolded text, "...ayon sa criteria na naibigay ni Ateo, si WJ ang nanalo debatewise." But it was not an unqualified win because he also said, albeit unbolded that, "Kung ako ang tatanungin, ibibigay ko ang verdict ng debate in favor of L". Thus, like the way I scored Xavier's decision, Pooch's is counted as WJ: 0.75; L: 0.25. Guys, the running score is: WJ: 2.50 "L": 1.50 The implication is clear. L will get a tie if he gets a full point from our final judge. Otherwise, WJ wins by exceeding 2.5. Let me now call on our final judge. He is somebody that is rather less known but whom I followed very closely and read all his texts also a non-Christian. [Trumpets, please...] He is
__________________
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Bookmarks

Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Thread Tools
Display Modes #46
05-11-10, 08:00
funkquy
A Muslim An Islamic Reformer Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tunisia Posts: 624
Hello to everyone ... First of all, a big thank to Mod Ateo for giving me the honnor to be one of the Panels. First of all: what is the subject debate in here, Is it : 1/ That the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction => The proposition of the debate or 2/ Bible Authenticity ==> The title of thread ==> As someone who followed this debate, I think that the debate turned around the Bible Authenticity more than the other one which says: the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction From the part of WJ and L ==> Most of the time they talked about the title ==> they never talked about the proposition of the subject. ==> Both debators agreed to talk about the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction ... but the substance of debate suggest us to think that both debators had only one thing in their mind ==> Prooving that the bible is authentic or not. ==> It seems that the title of the tread affected the mentality of both debators more than the proposition debate itself . I myself never thaught we were talking about something else in here. ==> The fact is that in the post N6 ==> L is saying by himself: Today we will be discussing a very important issue regarding the authenticity of the Bible. ==> By himself, L specifies that he is going to talk about the authenticity of the bible. So because the debate turned about "the authenticity of the bible" and not something else ==> Then i will make my judgement basing on that specific criteria. As far as i know ==> The proposition of the debate saying that: the Muslim assertion that the Bible is corrupted is a mere fiction ... never happened. ==> All what we got these last days is a debate about the bible authenticity ... nothing else. ==> Based on that criteria: I, Funkquy: the five Judge of this
palen, draw in favor of White Jewel /// A big sorry to my friend L. Logic Argumentation: Most of the time, the debator L tried to put both (the Coran & the bible) on the same wavelength. ==> in most of the debate, he was tring to say that: 1- Because the Qur'an contains errors and contraditions, then it is normal that the Bible contains errors and contraditions too. 2- Since the Qur'an was written by unknown persons but for Muslims it is authentic, then it is quite normal that the Bible is authentic even if it was written by strangers ... 3- And Since the Qur'an is from God despite all the errors and contraditions and unknown authors ==> Then despite all the errors and contraditions and unknown authors of the bible, despite all that, the bible must be from God Too ==> So the bible is authentic. ==> That was the argumentation of L ==> based on that argumentation ... I would say that both the bible and the Koran are unauthentic.... The only problem in here, we are not judging the Qur'an authenticity, we are judging the bible's authenticity. ==> So right now, the only thing that L prooved is that the bible in unauthentic. ==> Logic and Argumentation score L:0 // WJ:1 Use of evidence: Id like to congratulate both of the debators ==> Because both of them used a lot of evidences and sources in this subject ==> With L, I was seeing a source at each line ==> that was very Good and very hard Job. ==> Most of the sources were accessible from internet. With WJ, he also used sources, but most of them are coming from books ==> As a judge, i couldnt check if these sources are true or not ==> But the name of the books does exist. ==> I give to L a total score because he permitted us to check his sources. ==> Use of Evidence: L: 1 // WJ: 0.75 Compliance to the Rules: They are rules which has violated in this debate by both parties. We thank our Moderator Ateo for being the policeman of this thread and have encountred the debators to follow the rules ... Since the debators have folowed the instructions of the Moderator ==> No need to decrease their points But ... there a rule that has been violated by L ... and mod ATEO could do anything about it. In fact, L has violated the 8th rule ==> he opened another thread (a poll) in another section of the forum, to talk about the same subject ==> This is a clear violation of the rule N8. Mod ATEO couldnt do anything about it, but I, however, could something about it ==> I could decrease the points of L in my Judging ==> But since WJ decided to go and make posts on that thread too (the one with the poll), then L is not in fault anymore ... WJ should retain himself and let Justice take its course ... ==> Mr WJ, why do you think Juges are there for ==> Even if you saw that L didnt comply with rules , it is not an excuse to go on the same path that he did. You remember that next time. ==> Compliance to the Rules: L:1 // WJ:1
Debate personality and style I liked a lot the beguining statements of both WJ and L. ***WJ was beguining his posts by saying: I begin with the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful ***L was beguining his posts by saying: Good day everyone. Peace of the Christ to all. ==> Both debators were saluting the members of this forum by their own way ==> I really liked that ==> Nice touch for both of them. But concerning the readability and clarity of the posts ==> The beguining was good ==> both debators were using colors, they were doing clear presentations ==> very nice stuff . BUT since the post N16 ==> it seems that L abadonned the nice presentations, he wasnt using colors anymore ==> His posts were very sad ... Because of that, I give WJ a total score. ==> Debate personality and style: Wj: 1 // L: 0.5 I gave explanations on why and how i made scores... regardless of any doctrinal implications towards my religion. Salutations.
__________________ All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. [Excerpt from the Prophet's Last Sermon]
Last edited by funkquy; 05-11-10 at 08:10.
05-12-10, 10:41
#47
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Summary of Result
I thank, Funkquy, for his decision post. I agree strongly with many of his points and will keep them in mind in future debates. There, guys, are all our official judges. This debate resulted in a decisive win to WhiteJewel. The scores closed at: WJ: 3.5 "L": 1.5
My personal congratulations not just to WJ but to both debaters for a well argued and engaging debate. My final comments will follow.
__________________
05-13-10, 08:40
#48
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 Debate is now closed.
Allow me to make the last say, he he he. I would like to point a few items that are remarkable in this debate: 1. This is the first time that we have a debate with judges. I think it worked. The set-up leaves the debate well settled and not left hanging. I think we have made a good practice here and I strongly urge future debaters to follow this format. The key, of course, is to find judges who are willing to defend their position and give each debater a fair chance. I therefore thank our current judges -- Element, Xavier, Unrealdummy, Pooch and Funkquy -- who have shown courage and fairness in giving their opinions. I think by having judges, we are able to make sure that there is somebody who actully reads the posts carefully 2. The Q&A format also worked. It made the debate more engaging and allowed follow up questions. I am thinking of even more improvements -perhaps in the next debate. A real time (the two debaters are present online), short posts, rapid exchange of posts can be a good format for the Q&A portion of the debate. It would look natural and it be fun. 3. I noticed that the audience were rather timid when the debate has started. There are a lot of bantering and positioning prior to the debate, but there seems to be no analysis and critiques from the audience during the debate. Is it because Harballah and Kapatid were not in the gallery? 4. I should be more relaxed and less defensive. I should not be too formal in my style and I should not feel the need to explain all my moves. The debate sounded like a Supreme Court proceedings because of my style, and I did not like it, he he he. 5. But overall, I am happy with the quality of the debate. I congratulate both L and WJ for it. It is burdensome to be a mod, but I enjoyed it too. Thank you for all the nice words directed to me. The debate is now closed.
__________________
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4

Christian-Muslim Debate On Bible Authenticity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian-Muslim Debate On Bible Authenticity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WJ is WhiteJewel (http://www.facebook.

One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"

Last edited by Ateo; 04-15-10 at 14:58.

5 questions max 5 questions max

Last edited by Ateo; 04-15-10 at 15:31.

FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/

Last edited by Ateo; 04-15-10 at 15:03.

"L" is given 48 hours to make his first posting.

(the religion of peace?)

(the religion of peace?)

(the religion of peace?)

Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929

One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Display Modes #16

(the religion of peace?)

(the religion of peace?)

(the religion of peace?)

(the religion of peace?)

FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/

(the religion of peace?)

FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646

Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Display Modes #31

(the religion of peace?)

That's it for me, Cheers!

Last edited by Ateo; 05-03-10 at 12:41.

__________________ Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Last edited by Xavier; 05-04-10 at 01:11.

therefore corrupted na ang OT?

Other than the KORAN nga eh! doh!

Fair enough. WJ rebounds.

Now as a judge, how can I comment about this?

WJ then mentioned in his last rebuttal

True but incomplete. Remember that the topic is about

right?! Syempre gagamit tayo ng Koran. And L did that sa affirmative

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

One-on-One Debate Challenge "L" vs. WJ: On "Bible Authenticity"

Display Modes #46

Last edited by funkquy; 05-11-10 at 08:10.

Last edited by Ateo; 05-12-10 at 11:35.

You might also like