Islam Abduallah (Quran, Muhammad) vs 1Robin (Jesus, Bible)

[1robin]

Hello Abduallah,

Topic: Which is more reliable Muhammad, Quran or Jesus, Bible.

There are two issues I run into when debating Muslims I would like to clarify.

1. I do not regard the Quran or Muhammad as being divinely inspired. To show that I must use issues that for a Muslim might be offensive. I do not do anything to be offensive but it is an inescapable by product. I do not wish to insult Islam but my comments may be perceived that way based on the emotional attachment to the religion of Muslims. Can you debate rationally and not get overly defensive? I assure you that Jesus can take whatever you can throw at him, is the same true with Muhammad?

2. I realize that Muslim's have some criteria by which they determine what they accept as reliable or not (resource wise). Do you understand that a Christian is not required to restrict himself to only texts that Islam deems valid? I have no problem with you showing a claim to be incorrect but do not regard the arbitrary dismissal of sources because they are not flattering to Islam as valid scholarship.

If these comments seem reasonable I look forward to a spirited and informative debate. You may post the first claim if you wish. Shalom,

 

[islam abduallah]

in the name of Allah the most merciful the most
Allah said "Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah"

about your first comment, if you know prophet Mohamed as well, you won't need to ask this question, his morals and ethics answered you
your second comment, your words is sensible to me, i'll not judge your book based on what Islam said, i'll judge it based on what itself says, fair enough?
when i debate with some one, my intention is only to show the truth whatever it was, if it's in my side so it's OK, if not in my side and the other debater convinced me by my mistakes, i'll accept that from him and will seek another faith

i hope you share me the same intention as the debate will be useless if e don't agree on that intention

 

[1robin]

in the name of Allah the most merciful the most
Allah said "Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah"

about your first comment, if you know prophet Mohamed as well, you won't need to ask this question, his morals and ethics answered you
your second comment, your words is sensible to me, i'll not judge your book based on what Islam said, i'll judge it based on what itself says, fair enough?
when i debate with some one, my intention is only to show the truth whatever it was, if it's in my side so it's OK, if not in my side and the other debater convinced me by my mistakes, i'll accept that from him and will seek another faith

i hope you share me the same intention as the debate will be useless if e don't agree on that intention

I take you are not from the west and that English is not your primary language. At least you have an excuse, I screw up english all the time and am from the U.S. However this may mean I will ask for clarification occasionally.

I believe your condition here is that we only post what we believe is likely true. I can agree to that, however sometimes I run across something and post it in order to get a response from someone who may know more about the claim than I do. Regardless I can promise that I will never post anything that I know to be false and only post things for their merit and not their effect.

If that is agreeable the first post is yours or if you wish I could begin. Your choice.

 

[islam abduallah]

I take you are not from the west and that English is not your primary language. At least you have an excuse, I screw up english all the time and am from the U.S. However this may mean I will ask for clarification occasionally.

I believe your condition here is that we only post what we believe is likely true. I can agree to that, however sometimes I run across something and post it in order to get a response from someone who may know more about the claim than I do. Regardless I can promise that I will never post anything that I know to be false and only post things for their merit and not their effect.

If that is agreeable the first post is yours or if you wish I could begin. Your choice.

you can ask for clarifications as you need, by the way, you may not understand my point about the aim of the debate, i meant we have to agree that the aim of it should be seek the truth and follow it even if it's against what we are currently believing in, do you agree on that??

to save time and posts, i'll begin
i believe that any truth seeker should read the bible and quran, that books that have too much followers in each corner of the world, and i did that few years ago
and there were several comments that prevented me from believing that the bible is the word of god in both O.T. and N.T., like some verses seems to be contradicted against each other or against what Christians actually believe, errors and mistakes, meaning of son of god vs son of man, bible's writers, many other things which usually when i discussed with Christians we don't reach any agreeable result, so i'll not discuss it with you
but i'll discuss with you the subject of "but i'll discuss with you the subject of "crucifixion of Christ" peace to be on him
crucifixion means died on the cross, you agree with that meaning?

in matthew 12:38 Jews asked Jesus to present for them a sign about his prophecy "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee" so he answered "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas" Matthew 12:39
so Jesus promised them that he will provide them with a miracle like the miracle of prophet Jonas, what was his miracle? as per Jonah 1 : 17 "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." so prophet Jonah peace up on him spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish "alive" this was his miracle, so to make the miracle or sign of Jesus same as prophet Jonah, he should spent three days and three nights in the belly of earth a live as he said in Matthew 12:39 and also said in Matthew 12:40 clearly "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" i like the word "son of man"

So if Jesus spent less or more than three days and three nights in the heart of earth, he doesn't meet his sign, or if he died in the heart of earth as Jonah was alive in the belly of whale, nobody claim he died, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed that Jonas was alive in the whale's belly
let's see how long was the period that Jesus spent in the earth heart
Jesus was crucified on the day before Sabbath which is Friday, it's known for all Christians "the sad Friday" and the Jews was in hurry to bury them before Saturday night because it's their holy day, so i'll say that he was buried before Saturday night on Friday, then Saturday night, then Saturday, then when Mary Magdalene came to check his grave found the stone is moved as per luke 24 :1-3 "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them, And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus"

so he spent in the heart of earth, a complete saturday "day-night", Sunday night and i'll assume part of friday "day" so the total will be 2 days and 2 nights as maximum period which is not identical to the Jonas miracle, also if he died this will make his sign not equal to the sign of Jonas too as Jonas was alive

also i'd like to ask you 2 remaining questions, to say that a human is raised up after death, it would be by body and spirit, or spirit only?
second one, how Jesus was crucified by cutting his legs or by the slow crucifixion?

 

[1robin]

you can ask for clarifications as you need, by the way, you may not understand my point about the aim of the debate, i meant we have to agree that the aim of it should be seek the truth and follow it even if it's against what we are currently believing in, do you agree on that??

Yes, I agree that we should follow the truth where ever that leads. That is precisely why I am a Christian. Christians have an advantage over any other religious group. They receive absolute confirmation of their faith when the Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts upon being born again. No other religion on Earth (including Islam) offers or demands a specific spiritual response from the Deity concerning EVERY single convert, Islam like most religions only has an intellectual commitment to a theological philosophy necessary to become a "believer". It and others may offer a response from the Deity but only when extreme and rare conditions are met and it is always some other guy who has the experience. I have yet to find a Muslim, Hindu, or Hebrew that claims to have experienced God. I and billions of other Christians have and that is confirmation that I have the truth.
By the way it might be necessary to delete sections of what you posted to get the response to fit on a single post. I will try hard to retain the issue that you raised. As I am the only one that will read it then nothing is lost by doing this.

O.T. and N.T., like some verses seems to be contradicted against each other or against what Christians actually believe, errors and mistakes, meaning of son of god vs son of man, bible's writers, many other things which usually when i discussed with Christians we don't reach any agreeable result,

I must answer but you may not respond if you wish.
1. There are no actual contradictions in the Bible that I have ever seen. I have defended hundreds. They are all easily explained if deeper than surface level research is done. One of the most famous is that there are two lists in Genesis concerning the things created. They are in different orders. Once you realize that one is a chronological list and the other is a simple relational list the order does not matter and there is no contradiction.
2. It is not meaningfull if fallible Christians believe something that isn't Biblical. I do not defend fallen man or wayward Christians. I defend God and the Bible.
3. The only errors in the Bible are scribal. One to many zeros concerning army size or two Ns in John's name plus two sections of unreliable verses (last chapt of Marka nd the woman caught in adultery) are typical. Virtually all errors are known, admitted, and indicated in modern Bible's. It adds up to about 5% or less (les than 2% meaningfull errors) and is far more accurate than any other book in ancient history. As I will show it is even far more accurate than the Quran.
4. Son of Man and Son of God are roles Jesus fulfilled. Both are valid and distinct. They are not contradictory. Jesus was the messiah and also a role model for all men. Two distinct missions.
Every claim you made is easily resolvable but if you do not wish to pursue it that is perfectly fine.

"but I'll discuss with you the subject of "crucifixion of Christ" peace to be on him
crucifixion means died on the cross, you agree with that meaning?

The meaning of crucifixion depends on the time period and culture. For Christ your definition is accurate enough.

in Matthew 12:38 Jews asked Jesus to present for them a sign about his prophecy "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee" so he answered "An evil and adulterous generation seeker after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas" Matthew 12:39 so he spent in the heart of earth, a complete Saturday "day-night", Sunday night and I'll assume part of Friday "day" so the total will be 2 days and 2 nights as maximum period which is not identical to the Jonas miracle, also if he died this will make his sign not equal to the sign of Jonas too as Jonas was alive

This is Deedat's specialty and is used quite often. This issue is easily resolvable if the cultural use of words are accounted for. This is some of that following the truth where ever it leads stuff you mentioned. For some reason Muslim's say that our modern way of determining days and nights must judge Hebrews two thousand years ago (probably because that gives them what they want, inconsistency). However we must use the language as it was at the time. In their culture any part of a day was considered night and day when recorded. This started with the oral tradition they had developed many years before to avoid confusion concerning day and night. This issue appears throughout the Bible. Not even the story of Jonah is clear about the exact time he spent in the whale outside of a general statement that occurs identically in Christs case. You are being overly literal. I also want to point out you are also doing what is called hyper parallelism. You are assuming that since a comparison between to events is claimed that that means that every single detail is equal. The same thing is true about parables. When Biblical parallels are drawn they only concern certain parts of the two stories or allegories with the literal. For example the parable of the sower has been connected will all agricultural procedures and then projected on the literal. It should not be. In Jonah's case whether he was alive and Christ dead is not what the author was drawing a parallel between. It was only the three days they had in common as well as their general mission. The live vs dead thing is not an issue. There is never a 100% correlation of any two things in the Bible or even on the Earth. Nothing is perfectly identical to any thing else.

The solution is simple when we learn that according to Jewish custom any part of a day, however small, is included as part of a full day.1 "Since the Jews reckoned part of a day as a full day, the 'three days and three nights' could permit a Friday crucifixion."2 This phenomena is exemplified in scripture in the book of Esther. "Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way," (Esther 4:16 ). Then, in Esther 5:1 it says, "Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." We can see that even though the three days and nights had not been completed, Esther went in to see the King on the third day even though she said to fast for three days and nights. We see that "on the third day" is equivalent to "after three days."
How long was Jesus dead in the tomb? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

also I'd like to ask you 2 remaining questions, to say that a human is raised up after death, it would be by body and spirit, or spirit only?

That is complicated. For the final resurrection we are raised as spirit and given a new body that will never die. When Christ raised someone they were given an identical body but would die again. When Christ was resurrected he was given an identical body that would never die but bore the wounds of his crucifixion.

second one, how Jesus was crucified by cutting his legs or by the slow crucifixion?

They did not CUT anyone's legs. If they needed them to die quickly they broke their legs with a club. In Christ's case he died by giving up his spirit when suffocating. A spear was thrust into his heart to make sure. I have a medical paper from a famous and well respected criminal pathologist who was the coroner on the Gasey trial that states that every detail in the crucifixion recorded in the gospels is perfectly consistent with medical knowledge. Even the issue of water coming from the spear wound. That one used bother me quite a bit until I read that the heart builds up a watery fluid around it during prolonged suffocation in a sack like membrane, around the heart. The spear pierced that membrane and the water like fluid drained out. It is perfectly accurate in every detail.

If it is ok I will field your points concerning the Bible for a few posts and then I will give some concerning the Quran for a few and we can switch up back and forth. I will wait until either resolution is achieved or it becomes apparent that it can't be concerning your points before switching if that is agreeable. Selah,

 

[islam abduallah]

Yes, I agree that we should follow the truth where ever that leads.

this is a good start

That is precisely why I am a Christian.

this is the same reason for being a Muslim

I must answer but you may not respond if you wish.
1. There are no actual contradictions in the Bible that I have ever seen. I have defended hundreds. They are all easily explained if deeper than surface level research is done. One of the most famous is that there are two lists in Genesis concerning the things created. They are in different orders. Once you realize that one is a chronological list and the other is a simple relational list the order does not matter and there is no contradiction.

so what do you call that if it's not contradiction "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.2 Kings 24:8 ehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord 2 Chronicles 36:9

so which verse i should believe in, how old was Jehoiachin when he reigned 8 or 18???"

2. It is not meaningfull if fallible Christians believe something that isn't Biblical. I do not defend fallen man or wayward Christians. I defend God and the Bible.

i agree about the concept itself, but i feel that more than 90% of christians understand the bible wrongly

3. The only errors in the Bible are scribal. One to many zeros concerning army size or two Ns in John's name plus two sections of unreliable verses (last chapt of Marka nd the woman caught in adultery) are typical. Virtually all errors are known, admitted, and indicated in modern Bible's. It adds up to about 5% or less (les than 2% meaningfull errors) and is far more accurate than any other book in ancient history.

one error is too enough for me to reject a holy book and to not consider it as the word of god anymore

As I will show it is even far more accurate than the Quran.

i feel curious to see that

This is Deedat's specialty and is used quite often. This issue is easily resolvable if the cultural use of words are accounted for. This is some of that following the truth where ever it leads stuff you mentioned. For some reason Muslim's say that our modern way of determining days and nights must judge Hebrews two thousand years ago (probably because that gives them what they want, inconsistency). However we must use the language as it was at the time. In their culture any part of a day was considered night and day when recorded. This started with the oral tradition they had developed many years before to avoid confusion concerning day and night. This issue appears throughout the Bible. Not even the story of Jonah is clear about the exact time he spent in the whale outside of a general statement that occurs identically in Christs case. You are being overly literal. I also want to point out you are also doing what is called hyper parallelism. You are assuming that since a comparison between to events is claimed that that means that every single detail is equal. The same thing is true about parables. When Biblical parallels are drawn they only concern certain parts of the two stories or allegories with the literal. For example the parable of the sower has been connected will all agricultural procedures and then projected on the literal. It should not be. In Jonah's case whether he was alive and Christ dead is not what the author was drawing a parallel between. It was only the three days they had in common as well as their general mission. The live vs dead thing is not an issue. There is never a 100% correlation of any two things in the Bible or even on the Earth. Nothing is perfectly identical to any thing else.

The solution is simple when we learn that according to Jewish custom any part of a day, however small, is included as part of a full day.1 "Since the Jews reckoned part of a day as a full day, the 'three days and three nights' could permit a Friday crucifixion."2 This phenomena is exemplified in scripture in the book of Esther. "Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way," (Esther 4:16 ). Then, in Esther 5:1 it says, "Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace." We can see that even though the three days and nights had not been completed, Esther went in to see the King on the third day even though she said to fast for three days and nights. We see that "on the third day" is equivalent to "after three days."
How long was Jesus dead in the tomb? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

i agree about your concept of Judging, that to return back to the original language of that time, i appreciate this way of thinking, honestly rare to be found in a christian
but i disagree with your applying to it, about the 2 verse you mentioned, it's against your concept not for you, as if i considered that they fast the 3 days although that they drink in the third day, so when i say how many days they fast within those 3 days? the answer is three, and how many days they breakfast within those three days? the answer is one, so you made the three days as four to match this concept, which surly my math rules doesn't accept
but to solve it, we can say that those people were ordered to fast three but they are weak to obey and so they breakfast in the third day and doesn't fully obey, this is more logical than twisting the meaning of day and night at Jews, specially that the ancient Egyptians ware counting days and nights as we are currently doing

That is complicated. For the final resurrection we are raised as spirit and given a new body that will never die. When Christ raised someone they were given an identical body but would die again. When Christ was resurrected he was given an identical body that would never die but bore the wounds of his crucifixion.

well the gospel said the people raised up as spirits only 1 Corinth 15:35, 1 corinth 15:43-44
and this was the understanding of the Disciples, so when they saw him, they terrified and thought that they saw a spirit because they knew the death rose up as spirit only but he had a body that means he simply didn't die

also we are all know that dead bodies doesn't bleed but Jesus body bleed that means he's still alive.john 19"34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water, bleeds blood means his heart doesn't stop yet, his heart still pumping

They did not CUT anyone's legs. If they needed them to die quickly they broke their legs with a club. In Christ's case he died by giving up his spirit when suffocating. A spear was thrust into his heart to make sure. I have a medical paper from a famous and well respected criminal pathologist who was the coroner on the Gasey trial that states that every detail in the crucifixion recorded in the gospels is perfectly consistent with medical knowledge. Even the issue of water coming from the spear wound. That one used bother me quite a bit until I read that the heart builds up a watery fluid around it during prolonged suffocation in a sack like membrane, around the heart. The spear pierced that membrane and the water like fluid drained out. It is perfectly accurate in every detail.

well, how long jesus spent hanging to the cross as you believe?

If it is ok I will field your points concerning the Bible for a few posts and then I will give some concerning the Quran for a few and we can switch up back and forth. I will wait until either resolution is achieved or it becomes apparent that it can't be concerning your points before switching if that is agreeable. Selah,

still not Ok yet

 

[1robin]

this is a good start

Hello Abdullah, Did you say you were from Egypt?

this is the same reason for being a Muslim

We can't both be right so let's carry on.

so what do you call that if it's not contradiction "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.2 Kings 24:8 ehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord 2 Chronicles 36:9

Before I look into this I need to clarify my claim. There exists no contradiction in the 95% of the Bible that is without any scribal error. There are several known scribal errors usually involving numbers (adding a 0 or missing a 0 etc.) that have produced contradiction. Now that that is said let's take a look at this particular claim. There are four possible explanations concerning this issue that include scribal error. I would almost say scribal error because 18 and 8 are so close. However a claim that is put forward by some scholars is likely as well.
The Geneva Bible notes: "36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father's death, which was in his eighteenth year, he reigned alone three months and ten days."
During a monarchy a king would make a son co-regent with him while he was still alive. This practice would assure the king's favored son, (usually the first-born of the favored wife), as being the next king. Some of the kings had more than one wife, and thus several sons from these wives. To prevent civil war and fighting among the family, he would appoint the selected son as co-regent, so when he died, the co-regent son would be in place to take over completely. An example of this is seen in the life of David. In 1 Kings 1 and 2, David in his dying days, called Solomon before him and had the high priest and the prophet Nathan anoint him before the people. David, though he was still king, made his son Solomon co-regent. In 2 Kings 24:8, the biblical record is giving the age of Jehoiachin as 18. The cross reference of "8 years old" in 2 Chronicles 36:9 could be his age when he was made the co-regent with his father.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm
He goes into much more depth at his site if you wish further info.
The ones who disagree and say understandably that it is a scribal error are:
http://kad.biblecommenter.com/2_chronicles/36.htm
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I would also like to clarify what you mean when you say the Bible says this or that. Which Bible? The only thing guaranteed to be flawless is the original revelations. For our discussion as long as you are sure that whatever you post matches the same verse in the original language (not revelation) then it would be acceptable to be referred to as "the Bible". Is that ok?

so which verse i should believe in, how old was Jehoiachin when he reigned 8 or 18???"

Both or 18 in the case of scribal error.

i agree about the concept itself, but i feel that more than 90% of Christians understand the bible wrongly

You will have to demonstrate that conclusively before it can be meaningfully asserted. Scholars have had over 2000yrs to hammer out the Bible and IMO most orthodox doctrine is reliable.

one error is too enough for me to reject a holy book and to not consider it as the word of god anymore

Then you should doubly reject the Bible. It is problematic to suggest that God will maintain perfection in transmission even though the Bible approaches it. He would have to either kill or send an angel to correct every mistake by every scholar who ever wrote a single line of verse. He almost always operates by giving something pure and leaving it up to us to maintain it or destroy it. I.E. Freewill, Adam, Eve, nature etc...

i feel curious to see that

Even I was surprised at how unreliable the Quran is. I initially thought that since it is far more recent and was given in a time where writing was more practical that true or not it would have a strong textual tradition, however that is not even remotely the case. I will await resolution of your issues before posting those problems.

i agree about your concept of Judging, that to return back to the original language of that time, i appreciate this way of thinking, honestly rare to be found in a Christian

It might be rare in average Christians but I find it very much insisted on and valued by Christian scholars.

but i disagree with your applying to it, about the 2 verse you mentioned, it's against your concept not for you, as if i considered that they fast the 3 days although that they drink in the third day, so when i say how many days they fast within those 3 days? the answer is three, and how many days they breakfast within those three days? the answer is one, so you made the three days as four to match this concept, which surly my math rules doesn't accept
but to solve it, we can say that those people were ordered to fast three but they are weak to obey and so they breakfast in the third day and doesn't fully obey, this is more logical than twisting the meaning of day and night at Jews, specially that the ancient Egyptians ware counting days and nights as we are currently doing

You are confusing what I meant. I said it is a literary device that is not practiced in daily life. It was developed in oral tradition to eliminate confusion concerning AM PM sort of issues. It divided days up into 24 hour periods and said that anything that happened within that period is assigned to that period. That is not what they did in their every day lives. It was a formal literary procedure.
While to the 21st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: "A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same "as the whole of it." Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring "on the third day," "after three days," or after "three days and three nights," yet still be referring to the same exact day.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=756
That link also contains many examples where the Bible uses the same literary techniques in other day/night verses. Just remember that literary methods and day to day common methods in that time were different.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

well the gospel said the people raised up as spirits only 1 Corinth 15:35, 1 Corinth 15:43-44
and this was the understanding of the Disciples, so when they saw him, they terrified and thought that they saw a spirit because they knew the death rose up as spirit only but he had a body that means he simply didn't die

Not exactly. The apostles had no real expectation of a rising savior (even though they should have). They had just seen the man they thought was God's son killed in a grusome death and they were in shock. There are sitting around in stunned silence and in walks the guy they had buried. They were not shocked because they thought he was a ghost but that he is a walking dead guy that they saw killed. They even insisted on touching him and he allowed them to to illustrate he was no imposter, spirit, or illusion. Here is the verse:

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

1 Corinthians 15:43-44
That verse does not contain the word "only" that you said it did, but does contain the word "bodies" that you imply it didn't. However verses may only contain some of the truth and others add more details. Not that anyone is wrong. If I said that a house is made of wood. Then that may be true. If I say later that it is made of concrete then that is true. The whole truth is that it is made of wood and has a concrete foundation. Many times verses only give a part of the whole. Let's look at some others.
Isa 26:19a Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise.
Phil 3:20-21 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.
There are many more but this should be enough.
It is so well accepted that the Term resurrection bodies is used in the Apostles creed.
Here is a great site with an in-depth explanation of the concept and many more verses.
http://contendforthefaith2.com/body2.html
Spiritual body means a new incorruptable body that will never sin, die, or wear out. It does not mean a ghost like spirit.
　

also we are all know that dead bodies doesn't bleed but Jesus body bleed that means he's still alive. John 19"34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water, bleeds blood means his heart doesn't stop yet, his heart still pumping

That is medically inaccurate. Where you are getting that is that when the heart stops it can't force blood through the veins and out the wound. In this case blood flowed by the force of gravity downward from the heart and out the gaping wound. I have been a hunter all my life and can tell you it is a fact that blood will pour out of any wound that is large and exists below the heart until that chamber of the heart is empty. None of this matters anyway as this has nothing to do with a resurrection body as Jesus had not even been buried and raised yet. Even if I was wrong (and it was more of an educated guess) that he was still alive when they pierced his heart that spear alone would have killed anyone even if fresh and not having been hanging on a cross for hours. I have seen and tracked many deer shot in much less vital areas that the heart with much smaller arrows that that spear and they almost never survive. It is only a question of how quickly they die. Would you like a link to a respected senior coroner on the crucifixion?

well, how long Jesus spent hanging to the cross as you believe?

About six hours, but his physical condition was practically at the door of death before he even started to carry the cross to Calvary. The Romans were masters of torture and death. They were as good at that as Jordan is at basket ball.

still not Ok yet

I didn't mean now. I meant to find out if the idea was ok with you. If so I will switch over after we have discussed these issues until resolved or determined that resolution is impossible.

 

[islam abduallah]

Hello Abdullah, Did you say you were from Egypt?

yes, i'm

We can't both be right so let's carry on.

for sure, and this is why we are discussing

Before I look into this I need to clarify my claim. There exists no contradiction in the 95% of the Bible that is without any scribal error. There are several known scribal errors usually involving numbers (adding a 0 or missing a 0 etc.) that have produced contradiction. Now that that is said let's take a look at this particular claim. There are four possible explanations concerning this issue that include scribal error. I would almost say scribal error because 18 and 8 are so close. However a claim that is put forward by some scholars is likely as well.
The Geneva Bible notes: "36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father's death, which was in his eighteenth year, he reigned alone three months and ten days."
During a monarchy a king would make a son co-regent with him while he was still alive. This practice would assure the king's favored son, (usually the first-born of the favored wife), as being the next king. Some of the kings had more than one wife, and thus several sons from these wives. To prevent civil war and fighting among the family, he would appoint the selected son as co-regent, so when he died, the co-regent son would be in place to take over completely. An example of this is seen in the life of David. In 1 Kings 1 and 2, David in his dying days, called Solomon before him and had the high priest and the prophet Nathan anoint him before the people. David, though he was still king, made his son Solomon co-regent. In 2 Kings 24:8, the biblical record is giving the age of Jehoiachin as 18. The cross reference of "8 years old" in 2 Chronicles 36:9 could be his age when he was made the co-regent with his father.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm
He goes into much more depth at his site if you wish further info.
The ones who disagree and say understandably that it is a scribal error are:
http://kad.biblecommenter.com/2_chronicles/36.htm
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Barnes' Notes on the Bible

well, i don't open the links but let me tell you what i understood from you, one verse said he was eight and it means not fully reign but co-reign with his father who still alive and then 3 months after his father and the second was talking about his fully reign after his father's death, is that what you meant.
although that The Geneva Bible doesn't mention a proof about this, but it's OK of me, you convinced me by that point
but i have many other comments i don't know if you are able to refute it or not, but anyway you admitted that there are many other errors and so this is enough for me.

another point wish to discuss about the bible
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them
to show him all the kingdoms that means the earth is flat, as if it's sphere it wouldn't be possible for him to show it to him
also where's this high mountain in Palestine that will allow him to see it
i hadn't finished yet but too busy so i'll re edit this post again to comment other posts

 

[1robin]

yes, i'm

What were you experiences during the revolution? Are you satisfied with the Muslim Brotherhood that is now in charge or would you rather go back to the way things were? I see the protests and killings on the news and I feel sorry for the people there.

for sure, and this is why we are discussing

I actually thought you would disagree with that. Marching onward then.

well, i don't open the links but let me tell you what i understood from you, one verse said he was eight and it means not fully reign but co-reign with his father who still alive and then 3 months after his father and the second was talking about his fully reign after his father's death, is that what you meant.
although that The Geneva Bible doesn't mention a proof about this, but it's OK of me, you convinced me by that point

After doing more research last evening I am going to reverse my decision and say that I think scribal error is more likely the cause of that. When 8 and 18 are only different by the addition or loss of a 1 then it is very likely that is what happened. That does not make that the case but just more likely, it could be that the Geneva Bible is correct. Of the errors in the Bible the most common area where they are found is in numbers in the OT. They added or lost zeros and sometimes rounded up or down in one place and didn't in the other. Sometimes one author gives numbers of troops fighting and another gives the number of troops that a nation has total.

but i have many other comments i don't know if you are able to refute it or not, but anyway you admitted that there are many other errors and so this is enough for me.

Yes the Bible has errors. Since this is so important to you I will state what that means in a little more detail. I will copy what I had put in another post so it may sound a little weird but it is accurate. This was a discussion about Dr Bart Ehrman, the foremost textual critic of the Bible.
The entire textual tradition consists of over 5,700 catalogued texts. With 140 thousand words each for the NT. I will lower that to 100 thousand words to account for incomplete texts. That’s 570 million words. That equals one error every 1425 words. For a two thousand year old text even this is not bad. However 95% of those errors are meaningless and Ehrman would concur. They involve too many Rs in Peter or even capitalization. When it all said and done most theologians claim about 99.5 accuracy and most textual critics claim about 95% accuracy. The answer is probably in the middle. That is greater than any other work in antiquity by far except for Thucydides history of the Peloponnesian war which I have read, but he has other problems like time between original and oldest extant. 1000 yrs. I think, versus the bibles 20-90 yrs. and there are good reasons to say 10-40 yrs. but again probably in the middle. In Christianity the time span between event and recording is amazingly brief and even if claimed to be long by critics, the bible claims something no else can. The Holy Spirit was sent with the express purpose of recalling to mind the events themselves. God never promised pure copies but he did promise pure revelation and the textual tradition is believed to contain it all. The problem is slightly too much not too little. Besides this, all or virtually all errors are known and indicated in modern bibles and does not affect core doctrine. Man never altered the words of God wholesale. There are a few places it was attempted. It was unsuccessful because they are known. The only thing God could have done is either kill the scribe or send angels to fix every mistake of every scribe in history. As it stands the bible is without peer. Nothing comparable is even close. It is downright miraculous. The greatest expert on evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf) who literally wrote the book on the subject of evidence and testimony said the testimony in the bible meets every standard of modern law and history. This next part is from a textual debate between Dr Ehrman and Dr James White:
Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives
were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
Even the Bibles worst critic praises it.
As I will show the Quran is far less reliable ( I know you do not believe this) and is easily shown. I will do so when you are ready for us to switch.

another point wish to discuss about the bible

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them
to show him all the kingdoms that means the earth is flat, as if it's sphere it wouldn't be possible for him to show it to him
also where's this high mountain in Palestine that will allow him to see it
i hadn't finished yet but too busy so i'll re edit this post again to comment other posts

I think you are saying that either the Bible says the Earth is flat or that it is wrong about showing the kingdoms of the Earth as that can't be done on a round Earth.
If you are saying that the Bible claims the Earth is flat then: The Bible says the Earth is a circle (they had no word for sphere in Hebrew but the word chuwg can mean sphere in this next verse).
New International Version(©1984)
He sits enthroned above the circle (chuwg) of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Some have suggested that they believed the earth was a flat circle. That does not make sense and can be shown false. The Bible also says the horizon is an arch or arch shaped. Since no specific point is given where that arch is viewed from it necessarily is true at all points on earth. Then it follows that that would mean without doubt that the earth is spherical as if everyperson on Earth sees that horizon as an arch no matter where they are that can only occur on a sphere (not a circle). No flat circle would make an arch of the horizon at every point on Earth. The Bible does not say spherical specifically because they had no word that specifically meant sphere but it does use the word for circle that does mean sphere as well. When combined with the fact they say that the horizon is an arch at any point observed and their belief the Earth was a sphere is the logical conclusion. Here is a site that gives much more detail.
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?
If however you are saying that there is no way a Satan could have shown all teh kingdoms on a spherical Earth then:
All the kingdoms of the world - It is not probable that anything more is intended here than the kingdoms of Palestine, or of the land of Canaan, and those in the immediate vicinity. Judea was divided into three parts, and those parts were called kingdoms; and the sons of Herod, who presided over them, were called kings. The term "world" is often used in this limited sense to denote a part or a large part of the world, particularly the land of Canaan. See Romans 4:13, where it means the land of Judah; also Luke 2:1, and the note on the place.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
Another respected commentator says the same thing here:
Matthew 4 Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

 

[islam abduallah]

You will have to demonstrate that conclusively before it can be meaningfully asserted. Scholars have had over 2000yrs to hammer out the Bible and IMO most orthodox doctrine is reliable.

as it's most not "ALL" so i can't consider it as reliable.

Then you should doubly reject the Bible. It is problematic to suggest that God will maintain perfection in transmission even though the Bible approaches it. He would have to either kill or send an angel to correct every mistake by every scholar who ever wrote a single line of verse. He almost always operates by giving something pure and leaving it up to us to maintain it or destroy it. I.E. Freewill, Adam, Eve, nature etc...

the god did what's easier than all of that, which is sending a messenger to correct every mistake occurred in all the former messages
Why the god send Noah? to correct and renew the message that the ppl missed and being astray of it, so god sent him to remind ppl by their original message of adam, and so he did with abraham, moses and jesus was sent to the Jews to correct to them what they had corrupted and then when christians messgae being corrupted too he sent mohamed and he planned that he's the last messenger so he promised that he will keep it out of distortion and corruption "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian' quran 15:9

Even I was surprised at how unreliable the Quran is. I initially thought that since it is far more recent and was given in a time where writing was more practical that true or not it would have a strong textual tradition, however that is not even remotely the case. I will await resolution of your issues before posting those problems.

i'm ready to work in both issues as parallel as my concerns about the bible is too much to be counted so you will wait a lot to start your points, so go ahead and let's make it in parallel

You are confusing what I meant. I said it is a literary device that is not practiced in daily life. It was developed in oral tradition to eliminate confusion concerning AM PM sort of issues. It divided days up into 24 hour periods and said that anything that happened within that period is assigned to that period. That is not what they did in their every day lives. It was a formal literary procedure.
While to the 21st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: "A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same "as the whole of it." Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring "on the third day," "after three days," or after "three days and three nights," yet still be referring to the same exact day.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=756
That link also contains many examples where the Bible uses the same literary techniques in other day/night verses. Just remember that literary methods and day to day common methods in that time were different.

with my respect to your point of view and efforts to clarify that matter but it's still not making sense to me
if the people have a mistake in their calculations, conceptions, scientific matters, a holy book shouldn't accept that error and being in a wrong language, i mean this calculations is wrong as it makes us can count more than 3 days in the 3 days as i explained before, so the god should fix it to them not to approve their wrong method, Arab were doing mistakes in their calender and the quran doesn't approve it and fix it to them, and this makes me ask another question, is the bible the word of god or the word of Jews? if i follow your concept it would be a word of Jews and they wrote it in their oral methods if it's a word of god, so the god should follow a correct method and though this proves that Jesus doesn't spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of earth
another point, if it's as you said 'the Jesus would say a sign like Jonas spending 3 days" and no need to say 3 days and 3 nights, because it's meaningless to say it as it's enough to express by the word day about day and night, but he said that to confirm that he would spend 3 days and 3 nights i.e. 72 hours.

 

[1robin]

as it's most not "ALL" so i can't consider it as reliable.

I am seeing some double standards emerge here. Islam has fought wars and burned it's own Qurans specifically because it did not agree on interpretations but I will address this in detail soon.

the god did what's easier than all of that, which is sending a messenger to correct every mistake occurred in all the former messages
Why the god send Noah? to correct and renew the message that the ppl missed and being astray of it, so god sent him to remind ppl by their original message of adam, and so he did with abraham, moses and jesus was sent to the Jews to correct to them what they had corrupted and then when christians messgae being corrupted too he sent mohamed and he planned that he's the last messenger so he promised that he will keep it out of distortion and corruption "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian' quran 15:9

I screwed up in the statement I made that this one was in response to. I meant to say that if a few issues concerning the Bible are enough to cause it's dismissal by you then you should even more so reject the Quran as it's issues are far more numerous and severe.
I am familiar with what Muslim's think Muhammad did but as I will show I find all the evidence against that idea. I will wait for my post on the Quran to lsit these issues.

i'm ready to work in both issues as parallel as my concerns about the bible is too much to be counted so you will wait a lot to start your points, so go ahead and let's make it in parallel

Ok, but this is going to get complicated but we will see where it goes.

with my respect to your point of view and efforts to clarify that matter but it's still not making sense to me

if the people have a mistake in their calculations, conceptions, scientific matters, a holy book shouldn't accept that error and being in a wrong language, i mean this calculations is wrong as it makes us can count more than 3 days in the 3 days as i explained before, so the god should fix it to them not to approve their wrong method, Arab were doing mistakes in their calendar and the Quran doesn't approve it and fix it to them, and this makes me ask another question, is the bible the word of god or the word of Jews? if i follow your concept it would be a word of Jews and they wrote it in their oral methods if it's a word of god, so the god should follow a correct method and though this proves that Jesus doesn't spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of earth another point, if it's as you said 'the Jesus would say a sign like Jonas spending 3 days" and no need to say 3 days and 3 nights, because it's meaningless to say it as it's enough to express by the word day about day and night, but he said that to confirm that he would spend 3 days and 3 nights i.e. 72 hours.

I do not a claim any other errors exist outside the less than 5% scribal errors. Lets' review this so far.
You claimed that Jesus did fulfill the "sign of Jonah" in that he only spent less than 72 hours being dead and he was dead while Jonah was alive.
1. In Hebrew literary language use any part of a day is considered both day and night. Even the verse concerning Jonah does not indicate 72 hours.
New International Version(©1984)
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
As you can see it is not specific concerning hours and is identical to the verse concerning Christ:
New International Version(©1984)
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Here is even a respected commentary on this issue.
Three days and three nights - It will be seen in the account of the resurrection of Christ that he was in the grave but two nights and a part of three days. See Matthew 18:6. This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had "not" been, the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Savior as being a false prophet, for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy, Matthew 27:63. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain, therefore, that what was "meant" by the prediction was accomplished. It was a maxim, also, among the Jews, in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. See 2 Chronicles 10:5, 2 Chronicles 10:12; Genesis 42:17-18. Compare Esther 4:16 with Esther 5:1.
Matthew 12 Barnes' Notes on the Bible
So it was saying that just as Jonah was in the fish (for a literary three days and nights) so will Christ be. It does not say and would make little sense to say that just as Jonah was in the fish for 71 hours 58 minutes and 23 sec so will Christ be dead for 71 hours 58 minutes and 23 sec. That has nothing to do with any purpose of the verses.
So there is no problem at all there even according to the most respected theologians in history.
Wesley's Notes
12:40 Three days and three nights - It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty - four hours, for the whole day
Jonah 1 Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
That days and nights do not, among the Hebrews, signify complete days and nights of twenty-four hours, see Esther 4:16, compared with Esther 5:1; Judges 14:17, Judges 14:18. Our Lord lay in the grave one natural day, and part of two others; and it is most likely that this was the precise time that Jonah was in the fish's belly.
Every commentator I checked (over 10) said the exact same thing. You can check your self here: Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
2. What is meant by the sign of Jonah does not have anything to do with Jonah being alive and Christ being dead. They are incidental. The same in that Jonah was on a boat and Jesus was on land or that Jonah was rebelling against God and Jesus was obeying God have nothing to do with it.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Continued from above:
You said we must follow the truth even if it shows us what we do not like or believe is true.
A. The truth here is that every expert says that 3 days and 3 nights is a literary terminology or maxim and is correctly applied to any portion of a day. I even gave many other verses where this exists exactly the same way.
B. The truth is that the death and life issue is not the sign. It even says in Matt 12:40 that like Jonah was in the fish Christ will be in the Earth. It point blank states that this is no direct comparison but a similar dynamic allegory. The sign was that men who were thought to be dead and should have been thought to be dead will be supernaturally brought back from that state. They were.
That covers the first two and has shown there are no issues at all with any part of them. They are perfectly consistent, valid, and reliable.

3. The next issue was that the Bible says that we are only raised as spirits. I showed that that is simply not the case. I even gave verse after verse that specifically says we will be given bodies. I even covered the problems with the verse you posted not saying what you claimed. You said this:

well the gospel said the people raised up as spirits only 1 Corinth 15:35, 1 corinth 15:43-44

Here is the actual section of verse:
The Resurrection Body
35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”e; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

It actually says specifically bodies. What it means by spiritual bodies is that they are now perfect, no longer wear out, no longer sin, no longer require food (however I think it makes it clear food may be eaten), and most importantly that the spirit rules the flesh instead of the other way around as it has been. It even says that our heavenly bodies will be the same as our early bodies but better (higher splendor).
So that third one is not an issue and was clearly explained why it indeed it is not any problem at all.

4. The next one was about whether Jehoiachin reigned at 8 or eighteen. Now I provided a very logical explanation that concerned his father and his co regency. If I was doing this dishonestly I could have stopped there and said that is the reason and therefore there is nothing wrong with the verse. Instead I honestly researched and it and believe it is in fact a scribal mistake. You cannot doubt the sincerity of a person who does that. I have admitted that the Bible has less than 5% scribal error and this falls in that category so you were right but have not shown anything that I did not admit up front. You need to show that the Bible its self is wrong (the other 95%) and not that someone somewhere put two Rs in Peter or dropped a zero in a writing error.
I will grant this one is probably a mistake. So as of now you have shown a single actual error.

5. You said that Satan could not show Jesus all the kingdoms.
I posted well respected theologians that have produced accepted commentaries that showed even including many other verses that the Hebrew culture used world to indicate all of what is thought of as Palestine many times in apocalyptic literature. I can't understand if you are not willing to accept what was meant by language use of the day. You said you understood upfront that language use of the time must be used to understand what they said. Almost every Muslim I debate at one point says that the Quran must be read in Arabic to be understood. If it is correct for Islam why isn't the same thing correct for the Bible? As I said I even provided several other scriptures that use "world" that way. I do not see any issue here.

6. You said that the Hebrews thought the Earth was flat. I showed that they never specifically say either way. 4000-5000 years ago the issue was not all that important or discussed and language was far more primitive and far less descriptive. The only thing we do have is statements that say it is a circle and statement that say the horizon is an arch. If either one is thought of applying to every single person on Earth we are inescapably left with a Sphere. That is the best they could do without a word for sphere. Just to be generous I will allow this one as a draw if you wish. They did not say it was flat or spherical specifically so it cancels out in a way.
I believe that was all of them. That means that out of six you have a single error which I admitted to upfront, and one that I count as a tie for convenience sake, and four that have no problem what so ever and therefore the issue of the Bible's reliability is so far been shown to be exactly what I claimed it was.

It will take a bit for me to put together what I wish to post on teh Quran. In the mean time I want to make sure that everything I have said here is understood clearly. I will make any reasonable attempt to explain any detail. I do not like leaving a lot of unsure and unagreed upon conclusions in the past just to tackle new ones.

 

[islam abduallah]

Not exactly. The apostles had no real expectation of a rising savior (even though they should have). They had just seen the man they thought was God's son killed in a grusome death and they were in shock. There are sitting around in stunned silence and in walks the guy they had buried. They were not shocked because they thought he was a ghost but that he is a walking dead guy that they saw killed. They even insisted on touching him and he allowed them to to illustrate he was no imposter, spirit, or illusion. Here is the verse:

1 Corinthians 15:43-44
That verse does not contain the word "only" that you said it did, but does contain the word "bodies" that you imply it didn't. However verses may only contain some of the truth and others add more details. Not that anyone is wrong. If I said that a house is made of wood. Then that may be true. If I say later that it is made of concrete then that is true. The whole truth is that it is made of wood and has a concrete foundation. Many times verses only give a part of the whole. Let's look at some others.

i got your point but it was a clear answer that denies the rising up with a natural body because it simply puts it against the natural body, let's read it again as i understood "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." 1 corinth 15:44, it's sown in natural body but it raised in a spiritual body and to avoid shocking he said there's a natural body there's a spiritual one, and verse 46 confirms that meaning too. we will raise up as spirits only as per the bible

Spiritual body means a new incorruptable body that will never sin, die, or wear out. It does not mean a ghost like spirit.

from where you got that definition? what if i said like angels will be accepted to you?
　

That is medically inaccurate. Where you are getting that is that when the heart stops it can't force blood through the veins and out the wound. In this case blood flowed by the force of gravity downward from the heart and out the gaping wound. I have been a hunter all my life and can tell you it is a fact that blood will pour out of any wound that is large and exists below the heart until that chamber of the heart is empty. None of this matters anyway as this has nothing to do with a resurrection body as Jesus had not even been buried and raised yet. Even if I was wrong (and it was more of an educated guess) that he was still alive when they pierced his heart that spear alone would have killed anyone even if fresh and not having been hanging on a cross for hours. I have seen and tracked many deer shot in much less vital areas that the heart with much smaller arrows that that spear and they almost never survive. It is only a question of how quickly they die. Would you like a link to a respected senior coroner on the crucifixion?
About six hours, but his physical condition was practically at the door of death before he even started to carry the cross to Calvary. The Romans were masters of torture and death. They were as good at that as Jordan is at basket ball.
I didn't mean now. I meant to find out if the idea was ok with you. If so I will switch over after we have discussed these issues until resolved or determined that resolution is impossible.

to be honest, i looked for a clear answer in doctors forum and i found about 50% support your opinion and the renaming 50% says no it won't bleed

 

[islam abduallah]

What were you experiences during the revolution? Are you satisfied with the Muslim Brotherhood that is now in charge or would you rather go back to the way things were? I see the protests and killings on the news and I feel sorry for the people there.

still too early to judge them

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives

for me one error is like 1000, and it's enough for me to find 4 gospel for 4 different writers some of them born after Jesus and doesn't meet him face to face
also it's too enough to find that each a decade we have a new version with some updates and changes, the word of god to be updated to match the ppl's wills, the NIV was issued to change the word begotten son to be unique son because the christians not accept begotten son anymore, so have to change it to match their desires, isn't that true?

As I will show the Quran is far less reliable ( I know you do not believe this) and is easily shown. I will do so when you are ready for us to switch.

i'm waiting for that

I think you are saying that either the Bible says the Earth is flat or that it is wrong about showing the kingdoms of the Earth as that can't be done on a round Earth.
If you are saying that the Bible claims the Earth is flat then: The Bible says the Earth is a circle (they had no word for sphere in Hebrew but the word chuwg can mean sphere in this next verse).
New International Version(©1984)
He sits enthroned above the circle (chuwg) of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Some have suggested that they believed the earth was a flat circle. That does not make sense and can be shown false. The Bible also says the horizon is an arch or arch shaped. Since no specific point is given where that arch is viewed from it necessarily is true at all points on earth. Then it follows that that would mean without doubt that the earth is spherical as if everyperson on Earth sees that horizon as an arch no matter where they are that can only occur on a sphere (not a circle). No flat circle would make an arch of the horizon at every point on Earth. The Bible does not say spherical specifically because they had no word that specifically meant sphere but it does use the word for circle that does mean sphere as well. When combined with the fact they say that the horizon is an arch at any point observed and their belief the Earth was a sphere is the logical conclusion. Here is a site that gives much more detail.
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?
If however you are saying that there is no way a Satan could have shown all teh kingdoms on a spherical Earth then:
All the kingdoms of the world - It is not probable that anything more is intended here than the kingdoms of Palestine, or of the land of Canaan, and those in the immediate vicinity. Judea was divided into three parts, and those parts were called kingdoms; and the sons of Herod, who presided over them, were called kings. The term "world" is often used in this limited sense to denote a part or a large part of the world, particularly the land of Canaan. See Romans 4:13, where it means the land of Judah; also Luke 2:1, and the note on the place.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
Another respected commentator says the same thing here:
Matthew 4 Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

with my respect to all these but the world means the world, what we have now isn't an original text, it's a translation, why not the translators wrote that since 2000 y, wrote that means Palestine not the whole world, the quran translators did that, the put the meaning between () why not the biblical did that, because at first they thought the world is world, and all of those justifications and commentaries appeared after other religions refuting against bible

 

[1robin]

to be honest, i looked for a clear answer in doctors forum and i found about 50% support your opinion and the renaming 50% says no it won't bleed

I am answering this one first because it is the easiest. I do not care what any human on Earth said. If the Bible said a wound will not bleed after death I would reject it. As I said I have hunted all my life and was in the military and learned survival training as well as casualty stabilization. I have seen at least 2 dozen deer, maybe a hundred ducks, several hundred doves, and assorted other game after they have been dead for even much longer than Christ was, bleed terribly. They only do this if the exit point is downhill from the damage. It is an absolute fact. You are getting this idea from pop culture and tv when they say that dead people do not bleed and they use that idea to establish time of death and other things on these silly cop shows. It is true that when the heart stops that very soon after that the blood no longer is pumped out of most wounds (especially small ones) because the passage way seals back and there is no hydraulic force to force the blood out any more. There are several exceptions. If you grab a body that has recently died and move it or press on it it will bleed to some extent. If you penetrate the body with a knife or arrow it will bleed even if dead if the exit point is downhill from the blood. In Christ's case it is the absolute perfect situation to cause what it claims to happen. His heart was full of blood that had pooled from his arms and head as soon as he died. It was surrounded by a sack or membrane of cardiac fluid. There was a huge spear struck through the ribs from below into the heart and ruptured it and the sack of fluid. A spear is designed specifically to leave a ragged gaping wound on removal. What is it that you think would stop all that blood and fluid from running out the huge hole left by the spear? If you stick a hole in a water tank on the bottom is water not going to come out? Besides knowing this is a fact by personal experience I will provide not what a doctor said or a coroner said but one of the most respected forensic coroners in history said:
Obviously, this was no ordinary physician. I was paying
another visit to Dr. Robert J. Stein, one of the world’s
foremost forensic pathologists, a flamboyant, husky-voiced
medical detective who used to regale me with stories about
the unexpected clues he had uncovered while examining
corpses. For him, dead men did tell tales—in fact, tales
that would often bring justice to the living.
During his lengthy tenure as medical examiner of
Cook County, Illinois, Stein performed thousands of
autopsies, each time meticulously searching for insights
into the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death.
"Even before he died—and this is important too—
the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained
rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure,
resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane
around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as
around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion."
"Why is that significant?"
"Because of what happened when the Roman soldier
came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead,
confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was
probably his right side; that’s not certain, but from the
description it was probably the right side, between the ribs.
"The spear apparently went through the right lung and
into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some
fluid—the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion—
came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid,
like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness
John described in his gospel."
http://www.willowcreek.com/caseforeaster/Chapter%20One.pdf
I can supply endless statements by histories greatest medical mind, historians, and theologians that all say the very same thing. The coroner above busted the famous John Wayne Gasey serial killer. However if the issue is not evidence but preference instead no amount of things I can provide or ways I can explain would make any difference.
You have the Bible (the most studied and cherished book in human history), testimony by a very top forensic coroner, my own experience, and the obvious logic that liquid will flow downhill in a gaping wound. There is nothing that has even close to the sufficient merits to be able to over turn that conclusion. You may reject it but that is more a matter of desire not science, history, theology, or logic.

1. Imagine a water filled balloon sitting on top of a post and you puncture it with the tip of an arrow. The water will run out.
2. Now imagine that balloon is a heart and it is punctured by an arrow from the bottom up. I am here to tell you 9 times out of ten it will bleed for a bit until the heart empties but let us just for the sake of argument say the wound perfectly seals back and does not leak.
3. Now imagine that instead of a 3/8" diameter arrow that a 1.5" shft with a 3.5" spear tip is used and then drawn back out. A spear tip is made to rip enerything apart as it comes out for obious reasons. That will be a gaping wound with a completely wrecked heart that will pour out blood and fluid from the wound every single time without exception. I can't imagine a doctor saying other wise but they are fools if they do. Besides a forensic coroner is a specialist on this exact thing.

There simply exists no reason at all that the blood would not flow out of a gaping wound especially since it wound be strectched open by the fact that his hands are stretched apart as far as possible and he is sagging on them. It is making me sick just thinking about it.

It this is not convinciong then nothing ever could be. Historical claims are assessed based on probability. Which is more probable? That some doctors you say dissagreed are right? Or the Bible, the actual eye witnesses, my experience, and more posts from forensic coroners and other speacialists than you could ever read, and simple logic and reason? I will respond to the rest soon.

 

[1robin]

i got your point but it was a clear answer that denies the rising up with a natural body because it simply puts it against the natural body, let's read it again as i understood "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." 1 corinth 15:44, it's sown in natural body but it raised in a spiritual body and to avoid shocking he said there's a natural body there's a spiritual one, and verse 46 confirms that meaning too. we will raise up as spirits only as per the bible.

If it meant spirit alone why would it have the word body there at all. You in another place determined falsely that "world meant world" even though the Hebrew experts all say otherwise and yet here body does not mean body. This is what I meant by allowing a cultures language to speak for itself. You said you agreed and then say that body does not mean body but yet world means world. I am getting the impression that nothing on the face of the Earth, not expert testimony, not respected commentary, not an simple explanation of what is going on, not providing other verses where the meaning for the word is obvious and unmistakable, not any thing else can compete with what you wish to be true. It is especially that way when I debate Muslims. That is why I posted those conditions up front. It always winds up that you will believe what wish and there is no amount of anything that makes any difference. I will fervently hope I am wrong for a little while longer and answer your questions.
The words Body, Spirit, or any other meaningful words do not appear in any of those verses. They are the translations of Greek or Hebrew words. So in this situation where you post a verse and say it means X and I say it means Y, how can this be resolved? The next thing to do is look at the original language. God being God had the NT written in the most descriptive language in human history - Koine Greek. That means that many words that have different meanings many times are translated as the same English word or any other less descriptive language. So in disagreements we must find the original language. I use Blue Letter Bible and it is a very well respected source. I will usually go and get the original words and post the Greek definitions for them. In this case I do not have to because the other logical way to settle these issues has already done it for me. The 10 or so respected and excepted commentators are most reliable source concerning the meanings of verses. Not perfect but still the best. I will provide both the original words and their meanings using the commentators. Here is one commentary on both the original words for spiritual and natural bodies. I will also give the link to all of them but they all say the same thing.
First the "natural body"
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
It is sown a natural body - (σῶμα ψυχικὸν sōma psuchikon). This word, "natural," denotes properly that which is endowed with "animal" life, having breath, or vitality. The word from which it is derived (ψυχή psuchē) denotes properly the breath; vital breath; the soul, as the vital principle; the animal soul, or the vital spirit; the soul, as the seat of the sentient desires, passions, and propensities; and then a living thing, an animal. It may be applied to any animal, or any living thing, whether brutes or men. It is distinguished from the soul or spirit (Πνεῦμα Pneuma), inasmuch as that more commonly denotes the rational spirit, the immortal soul, that which thinks, reasons, reflects, etc. The word "natural" here, therefore, means that which has "animal" life; which breathes and acts by the laws of the animal economy; that which draws in the breath of life; which is endowed with senses, and which has need of the supports of animal life, and of the refreshments derived from food, exercise, sleep, etc.
second the "spiritual body"
The apostle here, by affirming that the body will be spiritual, intends to deny that it will need that which is now necessary to the support of the animal functions; it will not be sustained in that way; it will lay aside these special animal organizations, and will cease to convey the idea which we now attach to the word animal, or to possess that which we now include under the name of vital functions. Here the body of man is endowed simply with animal functions. It is the dwelling-place indeed of an immortal mind; but as a body it has the properties of animal life, and is subject to the same laws and inconveniences as the bodies of other animals. It is sustained by breath, and food, and sleep; it is endowed with the organs of sense, the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, by which alone the soul can hold communication with the external world; it is liable to disease, languor, decay, death. These animal or vital functions will cease in heaven, and the body be raised in a different mode of being, and where all the inconveniences of this mere animal life shall be laid aside. It is raised a spiritual body - Not a mere spirit, for then it would not be a body. The word spiritual (πνευματικόν pneumatikon) here stands opposed to the word natural, or animal. it will not be a body that is subject to the laws of the vital functions, or organized or sustained in that way. It will still be a "body" (σῶμα sōma), but it will have so far the nature of spirit as to be without the vital functions which here control the body
1 Corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Now we have one of ten or so of the most accepted Christian commentators in human history saying exactly what I said. If this can't settle the issue what can. If you deny that the world's greatest experts are right, the logic I use to show it is not right, the other verses that say similar things are not right, and theological philosophy and doctrine are not right by what method can the issue be resolved? I do not mind and would understand if you simply want to believe something because you feel like you are betraying Islam by denying it but that does not allow for debate. If a debate is desired then the all the issues I mentioned should make the difference but I am getting the impression they are not allowed to. I can argue this point in about a hundred different ways but if you are going to dismiss them all what is the point? Why would Jesus build mansions in heaven for spirits? Why would heaven be on Earth and have a capitol if we are simply spirits? Why do all those verses say body if we will not have one? Why do they say what we had (a body) will be raised but changed in nature (a new body) if it isn't? I am willing to spend a lot of time and trouble explaining things and re-explaining them if needed but not if they will be ignored. I like you and you have been a very respectful debater but there is no debate possible if you just cling to what you want to be true in the face of an avalanche of counter proofs. I will let you consider this and let me know how to proceed. I hope an actual debate is what you will choose. My claims against the Quran are not the types that have any need to deny what is plainly obvious.

 

[islam abduallah]

I am seeing some double standards emerge here. Islam has fought wars and burned it's own Qurans specifically because it did not agree on interpretations but I will address this in detail soon.

it's onlt one standard, just will know when you post your notes about quran

You claimed that Jesus did fulfill the "sign of Jonah" in that he only spent less than 72 hours being dead and he was dead while Jonah was alive.
1. In Hebrew literary language use any part of a day is considered both day and night. Even the verse concerning Jonah does not indicate 72 hours.
New International Version(©1984)
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
As you can see it is not specific concerning hours and is identical to the verse concerning Christ:
New International Version(©1984)
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Here is even a respected commentary on this issue.
Three days and three nights - It will be seen in the account of the resurrection of Christ that he was in the grave but two nights and a part of three days. See Matthew 18:6. This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had "not" been, the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Savior as being a false prophet, for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy, Matthew 27:63. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain, therefore, that what was "meant" by the prediction was accomplished. It was a maxim, also, among the Jews, in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. See 2 Chronicles 10:5, 2 Chronicles 10:12; Genesis 42:17-18. Compare Esther 4:16 with Esther 5:1.
Matthew 12 Barnes' Notes on the Bible
So it was saying that just as Jonah was in the fish (for a literary three days and nights) so will Christ be. It does not say and would make little sense to say that just as Jonah was in the fish for 71 hours 58 minutes and 23 sec so will Christ be dead for 71 hours 58 minutes and 23 sec. That has nothing to do with any purpose of the verses.
So there is no problem at all there even according to the most respected theologians in history.
Wesley's Notes
12:40 Three days and three nights - It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty - four hours, for the whole day
Jonah 1 Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
That days and nights do not, among the Hebrews, signify complete days and nights of twenty-four hours, see Esther 4:16, compared with Esther 5:1; Judges 14:17, Judges 14:18. Our Lord lay in the grave one natural day, and part of two others; and it is most likely that this was the precise time that Jonah was in the fish's belly.
Every commentator I checked (over 10) said the exact same thing. You can check your self here: Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
2. What is meant by the sign of Jonah does not have anything to do with Jonah being alive and Christ being dead. They are incidental. The same in that Jonah was on a boat and Jesus was on land or that Jonah was rebelling against God and Jesus was obeying God have nothing to do with it.

i don't mean to take it as accurate 72 hours, but really it's not logical at all to consider 36 hours as 3 days and 3 nights, it can't be under any logical standard, and as i asked you is the gospel you have is the word of Jews or the word of God? if it's the word of Jews so it's OK for them to write it in the way they are computing but Christians claim it's word of god, so the word of god should correct the Jews standard if it's wrong, and it's really wrong

but ok i believe you it was the Jews way in computing, but this not proves claiming about the credibility of crucifixion

Also the Jews are not in a justification to deny the Jesus, they denied him without a need for a biblical proof

 

[islam abduallah]

The entire textual tradition consists of over 5,700 catalogued texts. With 140 thousand words each for the NT. I will lower that to 100 thousand words to account for incomplete texts. That’s 570 million words. That equals one error every 1425 words. For a two thousand year old text even this is not bad. However 95% of those errors are meaningless

well, you said here, that these errors are meaningless, adding or missing 0 or 1 is a meaningless mistake, but how i could grant that this errors doesn't reach another verse but we don't recognize that, for example Jesus said i'm and the lord are one, how i could grant that he said originally i'm and the lord are two
also the word son of god how i could grant that it wasn't sun of god and the writers did it wrongly
because of that i said one letter wrongly is too enough to reject the whole book

 

[1robin]

still too early to judge them

That is reasonable. Good luck. Do you get tired of all the unrest in the Middle East? I guess you can get used to anything? I was in the Navy and got used to sleeping in the same room on a rolling ship with 40 other people, of course I was far younger then.

for me one error is like 1000, and it's enough for me to find 4 gospel for 4 different writers some of them born after Jesus and doesn't meet him face to face
also it's too enough to find that each a decade we have a new version with some updates and changes, the word of god to be updated to match the ppl's wills, the NIV was issued to change the word begotten son to be unique son because the Christians not accept begotten son anymore, so have to change it to match their desires, isn't that true?

Well, some did not meet him face to face but the Bible says they did know the people who did meet him face to face very well. The one or two that didn't studied directly under the ones who did. There were no apostles born after Christ died. Also the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the one giving the info, they were merely writing it down and the spirit was there for everything. I do not know what you mean about being updated. The Bible is virtually exactly as it was written even before Christ. The Dead Sea scrolls proved that with even the OT documents. Even the NIV which is on the way out in most circles is about 93% accurate. I do not defend all Bible versions. I defend the original revelations contained in teh Bible. Most scholars think the problem is we have the original plus about 2% included with the 3% scribal error that gives the 5% total. If we can get the current issues settled I will show the Quran is far far worse. For instance just in the Gospels there were four witnesses to events they wrote down. In Islam there is only one and he didn't write any of the Quran down. That in the historical method which is used to establish the reliability of historical claims is devestating. However I will wait to elaborate.

with my respect to all these but the world means the world, what we have now isn't an original text, it's a translation, why not the translators wrote that since 2000 y, wrote that means Palestine not the whole world, the Quran translators did that, the put the meaning between () why not the biblical did that, because at first they thought the world is world, and all of those justifications and commentaries appeared after other religions refuting against bible

You lost me with the language here somewhat. You do understand that the word world was not in the original revelation. English is a poor language to translate the most descriptive language in history Koine Greek) into. Many Greek words that have different meanings are translated into one English word because we do not have another one to translate it into. English is a stupid language. The Greek word for world here is Kosmos: and it means many things. 1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:33) the world, the universe4) the circle of the earth, the earth5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthlya) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
Now how do you know which one to choose. You may pick which ever one that proves your point as most people would do. I instead read as many experts and commentators who have spent their life figuring out what is meant in these cases. If they all or most agree and I see no faults with their claims I usually suggest their claims as the most likely. In this case about 70% said Kosmos meant the known Kingdom (Palestine). That meant that the bolded definition was selected based on 2000 years of scholarship.
The other 30% said that it was a spiritual vision and not an actual sight that is meant.
I chose the 70% as most likely but what I did not find any either Christian or secular scholar say was that it was an actual vision of all the literal kingdoms in their literal locations. I doubt you can find a single respected scholar that would suggest that and you sure will not find enough to challenge the groups I mentioned above. I have already shown that the Hebrews did not believe the Earth was flat and by this time when Mathew was written no major civilization had believed that for hundreds of years. Mathew knew many Greeks and spoke Greek. He was well educated and knew that long before this it had been proven by the Greeks and others that the Earth was spherical by mathematics. Even if the early Hebrews had thought it was flat (they didn't), no one that existed in the heart of the most internationally travelled trade routes in human hiostory at this later time did. And never would have faked a story claiming it was.