TurinShroud aka 15toOne Christian Evangelist from England UNVEILED!

Exchanges with TurinShroud/15toOne on paltalk

  Throughout the exchanges the readers will be able to notice that the moment this individual who champions Christianity is cornered he will retaliate and lash out with plenty of ad hominem and totally fail to logically and reasonably offer civilised explanations or responses. Readers will also be able to notice that failing miserably in defending his religion he will tend to attack Islam instead. Do not be fooled by this nefarious tactic. Make no mistake about this. It is a very common and useful tactic in a debate, but it is indeed a big time fallacy. It actually proves that the opponent is ill equipped at defending his beliefs which are being questioned. I hope the readers will enjoy the ride and find some benefit in the dialogue. Here is a final note before we embark. During the course of your reading, I would like you to always keep this verse in mind:

prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessolonians 5:21)

Failure to do so(PROVE ALL THINGS) will result in the total dismissal of Christianity. Let us therefore begin.

*For the purpose of brevity print screen shots of our private messages will not be provided. If you require them as proof i.e. that I’m not just making all these up you may email me at ibnanwar@yahoo.com for them. I will be more than happy to send you the shots.

TurinShroud: you crash?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: woops

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol hang on

TurinShroud: assume the position the bible is not in ‘error’ which is just a lazy accusation, but study the responses to your accusations

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Turin

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: thanks for googling that

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: come to the room

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: an explain it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and*

TurinShroud: i can only read it

TurinShroud: if you want me to fully understand it, it will take me longer

TurinShroud: and explain it

TurinShroud: but i dont run from it

TurinShroud: i will have to understand all context , jewish time and scribal methods etc etc

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

TurinShroud: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html read it yourself

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: just have

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: interesting

TurinShroud: we can discuss it in depth later

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: but rather far fetched

TurinShroud: not really

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you can gather all the info you require

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and we can discuss about it

TurinShroud: i think you have already made your mind up

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in any case the Bible is corrupted

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 1st John 5:7

TurinShroud: so why should i bother?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: once it’s there

TurinShroud: and?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and then it’s gone

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

TurinShroud: some say it is

TurinShroud: some say its not

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: some say?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: some say it’s not?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

TurinShroud: so what do you ahve?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: that’s what contradiction is

TurinShroud: nothing

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: who’s telling the truth?

TurinShroud: not at all

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: who has the holy spirit?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

TurinShroud: some scriptures have it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: bring some reasonable rational answer

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: we can discuss

TurinShroud: i just told you

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i know that Turin

TurinShroud: some scriptures have it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: some scriptures have it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: while others don’t

TurinShroud: so its a reference to them

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: so is it true or wrong?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: who added it?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: was it there originally?

TurinShroud: take as a standard

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: or was it added to?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: who added it?

TurinShroud: its not added

TurinShroud: it was always there

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: if it’s the latter

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: always?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: wrong

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in the oldest manuscripts

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: which the RSV

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and NIV are based on

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: such a verse

TurinShroud: its just a scripture or something does not contain it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: does not exist

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: BUT

TurinShroud: NIV is not right

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in the later

TurinShroud: nor RSV

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: manuscripts

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the verse is there

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: so

TurinShroud: KJV is what you shoul dbe looking at

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: if you wanna have a timeline

TurinShroud: yes

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: according to history

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: originally the verse was not there

TurinShroud: i looked into it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: but centuries later

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: it appeared

TurinShroud: it was

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in the later manuscripts

TurinShroud: nope

TurinShroud: you are wrong

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: ….

TurinShroud: it was alwyas there

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: RSV is not right…NIV is not right…well take that up with the professors who translated them

TurinShroud: just some dont contain it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: christian scholars

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

TurinShroud: i dont care about professors

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: bring some proof

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you don’t care about professors?

TurinShroud: william tynedale

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: yet you refer to translations

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: not the original texts

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: because you don’t understand

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the original texts

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the tarnslations

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: which you refer to

TurinShroud: this is a massive discussion

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: are translated by professors

TurinShroud: so i keep it short

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: scholars

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: for you to claim

TurinShroud: it was there in original text

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you don’t care about professors

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: is rather arrogant

TurinShroud: regardless

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: prove it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: what text?

TurinShroud: i care about inspired men

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: what inspired men?

TurinShroud: like william tyndale

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: o.O

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: LoL

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

TurinShroud: WIlliam Tyndale

TurinShroud: It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: LOL

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the textus receptus is a much later manuscript

TurinShroud: The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus.

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: u silly man

TurinShroud: Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 1 John 1:7?

TurinShroud: The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

TurinShroud: mmma comma?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: that’s the argument?

TurinShroud: who care about a comma?

TurinShroud: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: because of poor grammar?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i’ve read several articles

TurinShroud: na its talking about a comma

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: about the NT Greek

TurinShroud: youve read!!

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and many have attested

TurinShroud: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the use of weird

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: sometimes

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: unorthodox

TurinShroud: i promise you

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: sentences

TurinShroud: dig deep

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in the Greek grammar

TurinShroud: you will find it is original

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the textus receptus is not the oldest manuscript you silly man

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the person

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: argument

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: is based

TurinShroud: i know that!!!

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: on the fact

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: that

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: there is er

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: weird

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: grammar

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: involved

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in the text of 1 John 5:7

TurinShroud: The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the 3rd and 4th centuries and the copies now held in such high repute among scholars were written in the 4th and 5th centuries. The hostility of these documents to the Trinitarian doctrine impels the mind to the conclusion that their omissions and alterations are not merely the chance errors of transcribers, but the work of a deliberate hand.

TurinShroud: they were left out DELIBERATELY

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: …..

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: LoL

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: this i take it

TurinShroud: its not trinity doctrine at fault

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: is from a website

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: which is first of all

TurinShroud: its the other wat around

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: pro trinity

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and second of all

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: pro KJV

TurinShroud: seriously

TurinShroud: its the other way around

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i’ve read these “convincing” articles

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and they’re biased

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: oo you see

TurinShroud: you need to reverse your thinking

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the people who opposed the trinity

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: took em out

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: what kinda argument is this?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: loll

TurinShroud: its not what they put in

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the people who opposed the trinity

TurinShroud: its what they tried to keep out

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: were squashed

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: by the Roman church

TurinShroud: its a truthful one

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: they didn’t have time to alter

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the scriptures

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

TurinShroud: there is true trinity and false trinity

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: in fact

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: their scriptures were burnt

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and destroyed

TurinShroud: they didnt have time lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: naturally

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: since they were hunted down

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: by the whole Roman kingdom

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: under the directive of the newly established christian empire

TurinShroud: The Chief manuscript authority for 1 John 5.7 is in the Latin versions and it is found, with few exceptions in all the codices of these, both in the Vulgate and in the Old Latin

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: yes..exactly..in the Latin versions…in the Vulgate

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and others

TurinShroud: The passage is asserted as genuine Scripture with the almost unanimous agreement of Latin Christendom from the earliest ages. It should be remembered that the Old Latin was translated from the Greek at a very early age, certainly within a century of the death of the Apostles

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: much later manuscripts

TurinShroud: just because it is latin

TurinShroud: does not make it incorrect

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

TurinShroud: It is not surprising that the influence of Origen should result in the suppression of some of these authentic testimonies in the Greek copies, while the old Latin which circulated in areas not much affected by Origen’s influence

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: “5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” –NET Bible

TurinShroud: White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815–An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Before toV pneu’ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw’/ oujranw’/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo”, kaiV toV a{gion pneu’ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'” e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'” eijsin oiJ marturou’nte” ejn th’/ gh’/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.

3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.

5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

TurinShroud: White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Turin..that’s my evidence..that you’re a liar

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and that’s from a christian source

TurinShroud: White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

TurinShroud: niot at all

TurinShroud: im not lying

TurinShroud: i tell you what many have reported

TurinShroud: they calim 1 John 5:7 to be authentic

TurinShroud: and you and others do not

TurinShroud: which goes to say it is not a cut and dry case against 1 john 5:7 FAR from it!!

TurinShroud: just keep digging   

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: read what i posted too Turin

TurinShroud: i did

TurinShroud: a lot of it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: try all of it

TurinShroud: same

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

TurinShroud: why dont you?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: okay…i’ve read urs too

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i go with the texts i posted

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you go with yours

TurinShroud: ok well there are many articles online

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and we’re on our seperate ways

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i know that Turin

TurinShroud: well thats why its in dispute!!

TurinShroud: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: it’s always been in dispute

TurinShroud: not just yuo and me

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: what’s ur point?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: if it was truth

TurinShroud: my point is

TurinShroud: dont say

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: there shouldn’t be much dispute in it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: yet you guys

TurinShroud: 1 John 5:7 is fake

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: ahev produced different bibles

TurinShroud: say rather

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: have*

TurinShroud: some believe it to be added

TurinShroud: or fake

TurinShroud: while others state it to be authentic

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: it leads the Muslims to believe that you guys have indeed corrupted the book

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: since you have several different versions of it

TurinShroud: but

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: each suiting the NEEDS

TurinShroud: you didnt prove it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: of the translators

TurinShroud: so there

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i did Turin

TurinShroud:    

TurinShroud: no you didnt

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the verses i gave..i’m not satisfied with the argument

TurinShroud: or i would believe you

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: presented in the site

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: u gave me

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: rather far fetched

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: seem scholarly

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: sure

TurinShroud: so what you dont believe it???

TurinShroud:    

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: but they tend to seem scholarly to fool the average

TurinShroud: wow

TurinShroud: doesnt maje you right

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: ….

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i read the Bible as it is

TurinShroud: there are books on this

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and you couldn’t even explain it by yourself

TurinShroud: whole books

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i know that Turin

TurinShroud: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm

TurinShroud: so

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

TurinShroud: i told you

TurinShroud: some manuscripts have it

TurinShroud: some dont

TurinShroud: it was easy enough to say that

TurinShroud: you really have nothing

TurinShroud: NEXT!!!

TurinShroud: you know why???

TurinShroud: becuase i have the truth

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: ….

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you have the truth

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

TurinShroud: yes

TurinShroud: i do

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: we’ll see who has the truth on judgement day

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

TurinShroud: zzzz

TurinShroud: you are already condemned

TurinShroud:    

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: LoL

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: right

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Turin

TurinShroud: you dont need to wait

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you failed to debate me

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: so you resorted

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: to copy and paste

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: which i did

TurinShroud: you failed to debate me

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: oo really?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: i’m not the one

TurinShroud: you accuse and move on

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: who chickened out

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: loll

TurinShroud: lazy scholar

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and then you started posting all those

TurinShroud: i told you i needde to look into it

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: from a site

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: which i did too

TurinShroud: i needed to concentrate

TurinShroud: but you see

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: the one i posted goes against yours

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: and they’re from christian scholars too

TurinShroud: you dont ‘defeat ‘ me!!

TurinShroud: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: so you have no truth

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: what you have is conjecture

TurinShroud: actually i do

TurinShroud: you have conjecture

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: let me continue playing the game

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie:

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Is the Bible that we have in our hands today unchanged? Or has it undergone extensive revisions and alterations? Truth is the first victim in the Christian apologetical literature. This is because if they tell the truth about the Church history and its role in formulating the Bible (or Bibles) as well as the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, belief in the Bible as the “Word” of God would take the beating and the Churches would go absolutely empty. Hence it is not be surprising to find an average Christian’s knowledge about his own scriptures is pretty close to zero.

This page is to educate the Muslims about the Bible of the Christians, concerning mainly with its compilation and textual reliability. It is often seen that Christian missionaries dupe less-knowledgeable Muslims about the Bible by saying that the Qur’an confirms the Bible and hence Muslims should believe in the Bible. Muslims should remember that the Qur’an attests Torah, Zabur and Injil as revelations from God given to the Prophet. It does not attest whatever writers of the Old Testament or St. Paul in the New Testament wrote or said.

 

TurinShroud: if you like

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: But what is the textual reliability of the so-called Torah, Zabur and Injil present in the modern Bibles? The aim of this page is to venture into this issue. If one can’t establish the ‘revealed’ books’ textual reliability, is there any point calling it as the Word of God?

Lastly, we have made sure that we use the references of Judeo-Christian scholars of repute not the apologetical literature for very obvious reasons.

 

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: One of the more incontrovertible issues confronting any serious study of the Bible is the glaring historical vacuum of consensus over what constitutes a legitimate canon. Much like the early theological controversies, the Church was plagued from its very infancy with heated debates over what precisely qualified as “scripture”. Indeed, the widespread division over the most basic elements of Christian faith led each of the major doctrinal factions to champion their own versions of an “inspired scripture”.

 

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: The extent of this disagreement was only to intensify with the coming of the Reformation. The ensuing secession by Protestant Christians (themselves later to explode into literally tens of doctrinally distinct denominations) ensured that these major divisions would remain into perpetuity.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this less than flattering problem of multiple canons is conveniently exempted from the literature of missionary Christianity. The reasons for this range from humble ignorance (itself admittedly less humble in proportion) to the more subtle means of diplomatic guile so perfected by missionary propagandists. It is our aim to fill this factual void with a few helpful resources. Honest readers will conclude that it requires no stretch of the imagination nor any excercise of lofty reasoning to acknowledge some very serious problems in what Christians call “The Word of God”.

It is our aim here to educate the Muslims about the evolution of Biblical Canon and to show that in the absence of any agreed set of books as “inspired” and the reasons of why they can be considered as “inspired”, there is simply no reason to believe they are “inspired”. Putting it quite succintly: one man’s scripture is another man’s apocrypha.

 

TurinShroud: lol

TurinShroud: so what?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 1. Early Lists Of The Books Of The New Testament

Below are the lists of the books drawn that were drawn by various Church authorities showing, in their opinion, what constituted the extent of New Testament. The list is till the end of 4th century.

TurinShroud: you have nothing

TurinShroud: the koran is just as debateable

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 1. The Muratorian Canon

The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, I; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933.) Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimcs difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text.

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken him with him as one zealous for the law,  composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, ‘Fast with me from today for three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it, then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself ‘What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you’? (32) For in this way he professes [himself to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence – (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are, trom what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: to the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7), yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (61-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic church (67) – for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the Epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church] and [the book of Wisdom, (70) written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the prophets, whose number is complete, or among (80) the apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians….

 

TurinShroud: what about ciopies uthman burned?

TurinShroud: or the surah eaten by a goat

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 2. The Canon Of Origen (A.D. c. 185 – 254)

From the composite account put together by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, Vl. XXV. 3-14.

In the first book of his [Origen’s] Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, defending the canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows:

(4) ‘Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. (5) Secondly, that according to Mark, who composed it in accordance with the instructions of Peter, who in the catholic Epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, “She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you, and so does Mark, my son” (1 Pet. V. 13).  And thirdly, that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18) and composed for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe]. After them all, that according to John.’

(7) And in the fifth book of his Expositions on the Gospel according to John, the same person says this with reference to the Epistles of the apostles:

‘But he who was made sufficient to become a minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. III. 6), that is, Paul, who “fully preached the gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum” (Rom. XV. 19), did not write to all the churches which he had instructed; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines. (8) And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, “against which the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. xvi. 18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed. (9) Why need I speak of him who leaned back on Jesus’ breast (John xiii. as), John, who has left behind one Gospel, though he confessed that he could write so many that even the world itself could not contain them (John XXI. 25)? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, being ordered to keep silence and not to write the voices of the seven thunders (Rev. X. 4). (10) He has left also an Epistle of a very few lines; and, it may be, a second and a third; for not all say that these are genuine but the two of them are not a hundred lines long’.

(11) In addition he makes the following statements concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his Homilies upon it: ‘That the character of the diction of the Epistle entitled “To the Hebrews” has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who acknowledged himself to be rude in spcech (1 Cor. XI. 6), that is, in style, but that the Epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. (12) But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the Epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, this also everyone who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit’.

(13) Further on he adds: ‘If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the style and composition belong to some one who remembered the apostle’s teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this Epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this also. For it is not without reason that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul’s. ( 14) But who wrote the Epistle, in truth, God knows. Yet the account that has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the Epistle, and others, that it was Luke, the one who wrote the Gospel and the Acts’.

 

TurinShroud: or unauthentic hadith

TurinShroud: or 7 versions of koran

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 3. The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 – 340)

From Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, III. xxv. 1-7.

At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (1) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

(4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure.

 Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., entestamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.

 

TurinShroud: or added grammer

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 4. A Canon Of Uncertain Date And Provenance Inserted in Codex Claromontanus

In the sixth-century codex Claromontanus (D), a Greek and Latin manuscript of the Epistles of Paul, someone placed between Philemon and Hebrews a Latin list of the books of the Bible. Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that this list had been drawn up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighbourhood about A.D. 300. J. Weiss suggested a North-African origin.

[An Old Testament list is followed by:]

Four Gospels:

Matthew, 2600 lines

John, 2000 lines

Mark, 1600 lines

Luke, 2900 lines

Epistles of Paul:

To the Romans, 1040 lines

The First to the Corinthians, 1060 lines

The Second to the Corinthians, 70 (sic) lines

To the Galatians, 350 lines

To the Ephesians, 365 lines

The First to Timothy, 209 lines

The Second to Timothy, 289 lines

To Titus, 140 lines

To the Colossians, 251 lines

To Philemon, 50 lines

– The First to (sic) Peter,9 200 lines

The Second to (sic) Peter, 140 lines

Of James, 220 lines

The First Epistle of John, 220

The Second Epistle of John, 20

The Third Epistle of John, 20

The Epistle of Jude, 60 lines

– Epistle of Barnabas, 850 lines

The Revelation of John, 1200

The Acts of the Apostles, 2600

– The Shepherd, 4000 lines

– The Acts of Paul, 3560 lines

– The Apocalypse of Peter, 270

The dash before 1 Peter may be only a ‘paragraphus’, or Greek paragraph mark, to suggest that 1 Peter and the items that follow are not part of the ‘Epistles of Paul’. The other four dashes lower in the list identify works of doubtful or disputed canonicity.

5. The Canon Of Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350)

From Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures, iv. 36.

Then of the New Testament there are four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are harmful. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being smeared with the fragrance of the name ‘Gospel’ destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the latest work of disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul.

But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself, as you have already heard [me say concerning the Old Testament apocryphal].

Bruce Metzger comments:

The chief surviving work of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86), his Catechetical Lectures , were instructions for catechumens as Lenten preparation prior to undergoing baptism on Holy Saturday. Dating from about A.D. 350 they were delivered mostly in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built by Constantin, and were published from shorthand notes taken down by a member of the congregation. It is not surprising that this series of lectures, devoted, as they are, to presenting a full summary of Christian doctrine and practice, contains a list of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. After enumerating the books of the Old Testament, Cyril declares that the New Testament contains only four Gospels, and warns his hearers against other gospels that are forged and hurtful. Following the four Gospels are the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude, and, Cyril concludes, ‘as a seal upon them all, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches’ do not read these even by yourself’.[1]

 

TurinShroud: lol

TurinShroud: Islam is trash

TurinShroud: koran is trash

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: 6. The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360)

From a list contained in a tenth-century Latin manuscript of miscellaneous content (chiefly patristic) that once belonged to the library of Thomas Phillipps at Cheltenham, England; it was identified in 1886 by Theodor Mommsen.

[An Old Testament list is followed by:]

Likewise the catalogue of the New Testament:

Four Gospels: Matthew, 2700 lines

Mark, 1700 lines

John, 1800 lines

Luke, 3300 lines

All the lines make 10,000 lines

Epistles of Paul, 13 in number

The Acts of the Apostles, 3600 lines

The Apocalypse, 1800 lines

Three Epistles of John, 350 lines

One only

Two Epistles of Peter, 300 lines

One only

Since the index of lines [= stichometry] in the city of Rome is not clearly given, and elsewhere too through avarice for gain they do not preserve it in full, I have gone through the books singly, counting sixteen syllables to the line, and have appended to every book the number of Virgilian hexameters.

7. The Canon Approved By The Synod Of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363)

The absence of Canon 60 in a variety of Greek, Latin, and Syriac manuscripts makes it probable that it was a somewhat later appendage, clarifying Canon 59.

Can. 59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

Can. 60. [After listing the books of the Old Testament, the canon continues:] And these are the books of the New Testament: four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven Catholic Epistles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

Bruce Metzger says:

That a synod held about 363 at Laodicea, a city in Phrygia Pacatania of Asia Minor, took some action regarding the canon is certain, but its precise decision is unknown to us. At the close of the decrees (or ‘canons’ as such decrees were commonly called) issued by the thirty or so clerics in attendance we read: ‘Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.’ Thus far the decree is found in all accounts of the synod with but trifling variations. In the later manuscripts, however, this is followed by a list, first of Old Testament books, then of the New – the latter corresponding to our present canon, with the omission of the Book of Revelation). Since the lists are also omitted in most of the Latin and Syriac versions of the decrees, most scholars consider them to have been added to the report of the Synod of Laodicea sometime after 363. Probably some later editor of the report felt that the books which might be read should be named. In any case, it is clear that the Synod of Laodicea attempted no new legislation. The decree adopted at this gathering merely recognizes the fact that there are already in existence certain books, generally recognized as suitable to be read in the public worship of the churches, which are known as the ‘canonical’ books. If the catalogues are genuine, they simply give the names of these books, already received as authoritative in the churches that were represented at the synod.[2]

 

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: TurinShroud: lol

TurinShroud: Islam is trash

TurinShroud: koran is trash

TurinShroud: i do feel sorry for you

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: see

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you can’t even debate

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: ad hominem

TurinShroud: it is

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: tsk tsk

TurinShroud: its junk

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you feel sorry for me?

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: well it’s mutual

TurinShroud: seriously

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: lol

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: Turin

TurinShroud: its childish drivel

Onomat Al-Sufi Al-Shafie: you’re blocked

TurinShroud: written by maniacs

*Notice how he got thoroughly refuted by his own Christian scholars which then resulted in him lashing out at Islam.

Our second next exchange is dated on the 5th of November, 2008.

15toOne: KJV

Dr Onomatopoeia: lool

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: the KJV

Dr Onomatopoeia: isn’t accurate

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

15toOne: it is

Dr Onomatopoeia: sorry to burst ur bubble

15toOne: i know this by experience

Dr Onomatopoeia: u’ve presented and added another problem to the equation

Dr Onomatopoeia: Luke

Dr Onomatopoeia: apparently

Dr Onomatopoeia: misquoted

15toOne: what translation are you using?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

15toOne: no

15toOne: not at all

Dr Onomatopoeia: i don’t rely on a single translations

15toOne: this is quoted by Jesus himself

Dr Onomatopoeia: or translations

Dr Onomatopoeia: i can go to the original texts

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

15toOne: bah

15toOne: in 3 places

Dr Onomatopoeia:

15toOne: im telling you the KJV is accurate to save you time

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope : p

Dr Onomatopoeia: turin..brb…i have to do something

15toOne: by experience i know it is

15toOne: i wanted to show you something else

Dr Onomatopoeia: k back

15toOne: interesting, it translates ‘ha adon’

Dr Onomatopoeia: yea..what’s that something else?

15toOne: in 3:1

15toOne: i think Adon is only used for God

Dr Onomatopoeia: let me open my hebrew Bible

15toOne: oh

15toOne: here i found this site it has a good comparison

15toOne: http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Mal&chapter=3&verse=1

15toOne: of translations

Dr Onomatopoeia: i don’t need that

Dr Onomatopoeia: i have over 15 versions

Dr Onomatopoeia: of the Bible with me

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: and the Greek textx and Hebrew

Dr Onomatopoeia: and a copy of the septuagint

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

Dr Onomatopoeia: hang on

15toOne: this page is kinda the same

15toOne: “2 tn Here the Hebrew term          (ha’adon) is used, not        (yÿhvah, typically rendered Lord). Thus the focus is not on the Lord as the covenant God, but on his role as master.”

Dr Onomatopoeia: it reads

Dr Onomatopoeia: ha adon

Dr Onomatopoeia: correct

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

15toOne: yes

15toOne: ok

Dr Onomatopoeia: and that is proof against you

Dr Onomatopoeia: adon is used

Dr Onomatopoeia: for men

15toOne: adon is not used for me

Dr Onomatopoeia: but adonai

Dr Onomatopoeia: is the one

15toOne: men

Dr Onomatopoeia: which is used

15toOne: i think

Dr Onomatopoeia: only for God

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: u’re wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: sorry mate

15toOne: im not wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: when it’s in reference to God

Dr Onomatopoeia: it’s always adonai

15toOne: ive studied it

Dr Onomatopoeia: not adon

15toOne: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: apparently

Dr Onomatopoeia: not enough

15toOne: you are wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: let me give u some examples

15toOne: there is

15toOne: adon

15toOne: adoni

15toOne: adonnai

15toOne: Adon is used 215 times to refer to men. Occasionally in Scripture and predominantly in the Psalms, the singular adon is used to refer to God as well (cf. Exd 34:23

15toOne: ok

15toOne: so im not sure

15toOne: but youdont just have adon and adonnai

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: u see

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes exactly

15toOne: you have adonni too, or something like that

Dr Onomatopoeia: u got that from the blueletterbible

Dr Onomatopoeia: website

Dr Onomatopoeia: it contradicts what u just said

15toOne: yes

15toOne: well i meant

Dr Onomatopoeia: i know the different forms for the word adon

Dr Onomatopoeia: u have adon

Dr Onomatopoeia: adonai

Dr Onomatopoeia: and adoni

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: sorry

15toOne: something other than adonnai

Dr Onomatopoeia: this conversation will go on my blog

Dr Onomatopoeia: yet another exposed christian

Dr Onomatopoeia: somehow these few days

Dr Onomatopoeia: i’m on a roll

15toOne: we havent finished

Dr Onomatopoeia: alhamdulillah

15toOne: look at

15toOne: Psalm 110

15toOne: verse 1

15toOne: the thing it is used for God in exodus

15toOne: Adon

Dr Onomatopoeia: are you Turin Shroud?

15toOne: why?

Dr Onomatopoeia: just want to make sure

Dr Onomatopoeia: are you?

15toOne: WHY

Dr Onomatopoeia: you are Turin Shroud right?

15toOne: tell me why

Dr Onomatopoeia: because this text will appear on my site

15toOne: well lets finish then

Dr Onomatopoeia: hold on

Dr Onomatopoeia: confirm that you are turin shroud first

15toOne: so i made a mistake im trying to make a point

Dr Onomatopoeia: i know that u are

Dr Onomatopoeia: because u spoke on mic

Dr Onomatopoeia: yesterday

Dr Onomatopoeia: and u admitted that yes you’re him

15toOne: this is pathetic

15toOne: i said we havent finished

Dr Onomatopoeia: okay..so you are Turin

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin

Dr Onomatopoeia: i didn’t say

Dr Onomatopoeia: adon was not used for God

Dr Onomatopoeia: i said it’s used for men

Dr Onomatopoeia: as well

Dr Onomatopoeia: which you tried to deny

Dr Onomatopoeia: u said you

15toOne: so

Dr Onomatopoeia: it’s only used for God

15toOne: i made a mistake thats all

Dr Onomatopoeia: u urself

Dr Onomatopoeia: proved u wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: so our discussion is over

15toOne: i got confused which word

Dr Onomatopoeia: just like elohim

Dr Onomatopoeia: adon

15toOne: why??

Dr Onomatopoeia: is also used for men

Dr Onomatopoeia: as such

15toOne: are yuo scared?

Dr Onomatopoeia: malachi 3:1

Dr Onomatopoeia: does not prove Jesus’ divinity

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

15toOne: im not trying to proove

15toOne: by the use of the word adon anyway

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: i’m not scared

Dr Onomatopoeia: in fact

Dr Onomatopoeia: this text will appear on my blog very soon

Dr Onomatopoeia: for all to see

15toOne: if yuo put it on the blog any scholar will correct you anyway – with the use of hebrew

Dr Onomatopoeia: i get over 100 global hits per day

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15

Dr Onomatopoeia: u were the one who said

Dr Onomatopoeia: you’ve studied this

15toOne: this is how you treat your friend?

Dr Onomatopoeia: and said i was wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: in correcting you

Dr Onomatopoeia: then just a few seconds later

Dr Onomatopoeia: u got exposed

Dr Onomatopoeia: u exposed urself

15toOne: i didnt

Dr Onomatopoeia: by admitting

15toOne: i didnt

Dr Onomatopoeia: by admitting

Dr Onomatopoeia: it’s used for men too

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

15toOne: i THOUGHT

Dr Onomatopoeia: so

Dr Onomatopoeia: if there is someone who should be scared

Dr Onomatopoeia: it’s u

 

15toOne: i was simply confused

15toOne: you proved nothing

15toOne: you proved i made a mistake

15toOne: wow

15toOne: everyone does

Dr Onomatopoeia: this is one heck of a mistake

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15 : i’m not wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15 : i studied it

Dr Onomatopoeia: 1 minute later

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15 : woops

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15 : i’m wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

15toOne: sure

15toOne: of course

15toOne: but

Dr Onomatopoeia: anyway…we’ll continue again later

Dr Onomatopoeia: insha’Allah

15toOne: why havent yuo convinced me of anything?

Dr Onomatopoeia: be sure to look out for the article on you bro

Dr Onomatopoeia: oh…convincing you isn’t in my job description

Dr Onomatopoeia: my main priority is to give assurance to my fellow brethren

15toOne: where is your arguement even?

Dr Onomatopoeia: my secondary concern is of course da’wah

Dr Onomatopoeia: as for convincing

15toOne: so go ahead

Dr Onomatopoeia: well that’s Allah’s prerogative

15toOne: convince me

Dr Onomatopoeia: ; )

15toOne: ill become muslim

Dr Onomatopoeia: convince u of what?

Dr Onomatopoeia: u pmed me

Dr Onomatopoeia: you brought up

Dr Onomatopoeia: the subject

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: u’ll become Muslim

15toOne: that islam is true

Dr Onomatopoeia: well..that’s gonna take time

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: one does not just become Muslim

15toOne: well something

Dr Onomatopoeia: over night

15toOne: anything

Dr Onomatopoeia: usually not anyway

Dr Onomatopoeia: 15

15toOne: so

Dr Onomatopoeia: i’ll invite you to my room

Dr Onomatopoeia: when i’m free to dicuss about it

Dr Onomatopoeia: but for now

15toOne: all you can do is show i made a mistake

Dr Onomatopoeia: i have to do something

Dr Onomatopoeia: on the subject u brought up

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes

Dr Onomatopoeia: ; )

Dr Onomatopoeia: anyway…we’ll chat later k?

Dr Onomatopoeia: i’ll add this nick

15toOne: it wasnt even my arguement

Dr Onomatopoeia: oh yes, it was an extension to ur argument yesterday

Dr Onomatopoeia: anyway

Dr Onomatopoeia: good day sir

15toOne: no

15toOne: my arguement is

15toOne: Psalm 110:1

15toOne: i was trying to get to that

15toOne: may God fight for me against my enemies

15toOne: my redeemer

15toOne: not ‘allah’ the CURSE

     15toOne is now offline.

Messages will be delivered when they sign on to Paltalk.

 

COMMENTS:

He initially made the claim that the word adon in Hebrew is exclusively used for God in the Old Testament. I disagreed and said he’s wrong. Stubbornly, he said I’m the one who’s on the wrong and he then went out of his way and says that he’s not wrong because he has studied it.

Dr Onomatopoeia: u’re wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: sorry mate

15toOne: im not wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: when it’s in reference to God

Dr Onomatopoeia: it’s always adonai

15toOne: ive studied it

Dr Onomatopoeia: not adon

15toOne: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: apparently

Dr Onomatopoeia: not enough

15toOne: you are wrong

Without relenting I told him he’s wrong and I would provide examples. But, before I could he himself quoted a definition which refutes him totally. I identified the quote as coming from the blueletterbible.com site.

15toOne: Adon is used 215 times to refer to men. Occasionally in Scripture and predominantly in the Psalms, the singular adon is used to refer to God as well (cf. Exd 34:23

15toOne: ok

15toOne: so im not sure

15toOne: but youdont just have adon and adonnai

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: u see

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes exactly

15toOne: you have adonni too, or something like that

Dr Onomatopoeia: u got that from the blueletterbible

Dr Onomatopoeia: website

Dr Onomatopoeia: it contradicts what u just said

Remember what he said? He said “im not wrong” , “ive studied it” and “you are wrong”. We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does not know what the word “study” means.

Probably frustrated over the whole discussion he once again felt the need to lash out.

15toOne: may God fight for me against my enemies

15toOne: my redeemer

15toOne: not ‘allah’ the CURSE

He gets this idea of Allah meaning curse from the Hebrew ‘alah which is at times translated as curse. However, what people like him won’t tell you is that the word itself has around several meanings.

Strong’s concordance:

421 ‘alah {aw-law’}
 a primitive root [rather identical with 422 through the idea of   invocation]; TWOT – 95; v

 AV – lament 1; 1

 1) (Qal) to lament, wail

———————-

422 ‘alah {aw-law’}
 a primitive root; TWOT – 94; v

 AV – swear 4, curse 1, adjure 1; 6

 1) to swear, curse
    1a) (Qal)
        1a1) to swear, take an oath (before God)
        1a2) to curse
    1b) (Hiphil)
        1b1) to put under oath, adjure
        1b2) to put under a curse

—————————–

423 ‘alah {aw-law’}
 from 422; TWOT – 91a; n f

 AV – curse 18, oath 14, execration 2, swearing 2; 36

 1) oath
 2) oath of covenant
 3) curse
    3a) from God
    3b) from men
 4) execration

Thus, we read from Genesis 24:41

“Then shalt thou be clear from this my oath, when thou comest to my kindred; and if they give not thee one, thou shalt be clear from my oath.”

Both times the word oath occur they come from the same word ‘alah. Why pick Zechariah 5:3 or Daniel 9:11 (which can linguistically be rendered the same way as Genesis 24:41) unless you are out to score some cheap points? By the way it’s ALLAH not ‘alah. As a matter of fact the Aramaic Elaha or the Syiriac Alaha is close to ‘alah. Both mean God and are used in Biblical texts like the Aramaic New Testament(Peshitta). If indeed we were to take TurinShroud’s claim then apparently his Arabic brethren are worshipping a curse:

فِي الْبَدْء خَلَق الله السَّمَاوات وَالأَرض

 (Fil Bad’ Khalaqa Allah Al-Samawat Wa al-Ardh) [Genesis 1:1]

 

And let’s add the Malay Christians to the list to shall we?

“Sejak permulaah firman itu sama dengan Allah” (John 1:2)

 

It’s quite clear TurinShroud does not know what he’s talking about.

 

Our third exchange was on 12th of November 2008.

TurinShroud: hey there, watch the video i posted you?

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope

Dr Onomatopoeia: haven’t had the time

TurinShroud: he saw God and heaven , you should

TurinShroud: he died and came back to life

Dr Onomatopoeia: okay, why does everyone pm me the moment i come on paltalk?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

Dr Onomatopoeia: oh

Dr Onomatopoeia: i think i’ve seen that

TurinShroud: cos yuo just logged on!!

Dr Onomatopoeia: the guy with his face distorted?

TurinShroud: yeah he got stung by a box jellyfish

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: slightly maybe

Dr Onomatopoeia: yea

Dr Onomatopoeia: well, i’m sorry

Dr Onomatopoeia: his story isn’t all that inspiring

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: if the Bible is proven false and changed..then his whole belief is nothing more than just that

Dr Onomatopoeia: belief

Dr Onomatopoeia: one can

Dr Onomatopoeia: find such abstract

Dr Onomatopoeia: beliefs

Dr Onomatopoeia: unsubstantiated

Dr Onomatopoeia: in hinduism

Dr Onomatopoeia: buddhism

Dr Onomatopoeia: etc.

TurinShroud: well its not because he saw what he saw

Dr Onomatopoeia: heck..i know plenty of hindus who have personally witnessed their God

Dr Onomatopoeia: ganesha

Dr Onomatopoeia: drinking milk from spoons

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: point to be noted

Dr Onomatopoeia: many false prophets shall come who will be able to show u great signs and wonders

TurinShroud: totally different concept

Dr Onomatopoeia: even if it were possible to fool the very elect

Dr Onomatopoeia: ; )

TurinShroud: what we believe

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: the early Christians

TurinShroud: is totally consistennt

Dr Onomatopoeia: or alleged christians

Dr Onomatopoeia: followers of Jesus

TurinShroud: with what the bible says

Dr Onomatopoeia: did not build an ekklesia

TurinShroud: so

Dr Onomatopoeia: out of judaism

TurinShroud: we are not wrong

Dr Onomatopoeia: but rather was a sect within judaism

TurinShroud: God doesnt chance

TurinShroud: change

Dr Onomatopoeia: as we are informed by scholarship

Dr Onomatopoeia: which the masses of christianity don’t know

Dr Onomatopoeia: including you

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is

TurinShroud: lol where in the bible did God decieve righteous people?

Dr Onomatopoeia: such prestigious

Dr Onomatopoeia: institutions

Dr Onomatopoeia: such as Tubengen Theology School

Dr Onomatopoeia: of Tubengen University

TurinShroud: we are not decieved

Dr Onomatopoeia: admit that the gospels

Dr Onomatopoeia: are nothing more than propaganda material

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is

TurinShroud: you dont think

Dr Onomatopoeia: early church fathers

Dr Onomatopoeia: like Saint Augustine

Dr Onomatopoeia: were very very troubled

TurinShroud: saints are saints

Dr Onomatopoeia: by the fact that Christianity

TurinShroud: the pure of heart see god

Dr Onomatopoeia: has so much similarity with Mithraism

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is

TurinShroud: this is a principle

Dr Onomatopoeia: even the earliest

TurinShroud: maeningless

Dr Onomatopoeia: great church fathers

Dr Onomatopoeia: such as Tertullian

Dr Onomatopoeia: became a heretic

TurinShroud: so

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is several great church fathers even thought Jesus was 50

TurinShroud: humans are fallible

Dr Onomatopoeia: and not 30

Dr Onomatopoeia: as gospel reports

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: God isnt

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is Christianity is mythical

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: you have no foundation

TurinShroud: moahmmed was just a man

TurinShroud: and fallible

Dr Onomatopoeia: the fact is for more than a thousand years

Dr Onomatopoeia: 1 John 5:7

Dr Onomatopoeia: were thought to be inspired

Dr Onomatopoeia: but now we know it’s a lie

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: Christianity is mythical

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

TurinShroud: its not proven to be fake

Dr Onomatopoeia: you need to wake up

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: many christian scholars

Dr Onomatopoeia: of the highest eminence

Dr Onomatopoeia: like Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

TurinShroud: what?

Dr Onomatopoeia: realise the lies of Christianity

Dr Onomatopoeia: and became atheists

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: France is now totally secular

Dr Onomatopoeia: and churches are virtually empty

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

TurinShroud: God makes the wisdom of the wise, of nopn effect

Dr Onomatopoeia: most Christians in the West today are becoming

Dr Onomatopoeia: agnostics

Dr Onomatopoeia: atheists

TurinShroud: itsmeaningless

Dr Onomatopoeia: muslims

Dr Onomatopoeia: budhhists

Dr Onomatopoeia: new agers

Dr Onomatopoeia: wiccans

Dr Onomatopoeia: druids

Dr Onomatopoeia: anything and everything

Dr Onomatopoeia: as long as it isn’t “christianity”

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: due to this

Dr Onomatopoeia: missionaries target

TurinShroud: people seeking evil believeing evil will be decieved and danmed

Dr Onomatopoeia: africa

Dr Onomatopoeia: third world countries

TurinShroud: undesrtand?

Dr Onomatopoeia: where people

Dr Onomatopoeia: are mostly

Dr Onomatopoeia: illiterate

Dr Onomatopoeia: and ignorant

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

TurinShroud: people who believe evil

Dr Onomatopoeia: christianity is no longer relevant

TurinShroud: and seek evil

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: christians

TurinShroud: will be danmed

Dr Onomatopoeia: like those missionaries in Iraq

Dr Onomatopoeia: who are exposed

Dr Onomatopoeia: on my blog

TurinShroud: makes no difference how smart you think you are

Dr Onomatopoeia: need to resort to lies

Dr Onomatopoeia: to get their message to people

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: missionaries

Dr Onomatopoeia: like Logos

Dr Onomatopoeia: who come to Malaysia

Dr Onomatopoeia: and Indonesia

TurinShroud: you believe

Dr Onomatopoeia: need to bribe

Dr Onomatopoeia: and lie

Dr Onomatopoeia: to fool and entice

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turing

Dr Onomatopoeia: you’re gulliable

TurinShroud: you get little slave boys in heaven, like pearls

Dr Onomatopoeia: and have nothing to stand upon

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is

TurinShroud: this is called

Dr Onomatopoeia: you can only quote answering islam

Dr Onomatopoeia: who lies again and again

TurinShroud: unrighteouess

Dr Onomatopoeia: fact is you know nothing about islam

TurinShroud: the koran was copied

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

TurinShroud: proved by ibn warraq

Dr Onomatopoeia: hahaha

TurinShroud: from the mishan

TurinShroud: mishna

Dr Onomatopoeia: well, you continue thinking that mate

Dr Onomatopoeia: well, i’m off to bed

TurinShroud: and psuedopigrapher

TurinShroud: it was

 

COMMENT:

As you can see he was not able to respond to any of the points I brought up. Instead, we started to talk about Islam lol.

 

Our Forth exchange was today, 12th, November 2008.

TurinShroud: hey – heard of ibn warraq?

TurinShroud: an interesting fellow

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol turinshroud..by now you should know i am very much aware of things related to Islam and Christianity…much more than you are as a matter of fact

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, i have all his books

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: cool

TurinShroud: do you think the koran is copied from the mishna?

Dr Onomatopoeia: anyway..pm me when u have proper reaasonable responses to anything i’ve posited last night…i’m not interested in your hell and brimstone condemnations…you can join baptist minister pastor phelps if you wanna do that lol

TurinShroud: what was that?

TurinShroud: we were discussing

TurinShroud: how is 1 john 5:7 fake when its quoted by cyprios who lived in 258AD?

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope..we weren’t ..i was slaughtering you with facts on christianity..instead of building up counter responses you start questioning Islam..questioning Islam doesn’t remove all the problems which I informed you of last night..and saying i’ll go to hell certainly does not help ur case lol

TurinShroud: cyprian dorrt

TurinShroud: facts?

TurinShroud: i dont see you refuted anything

TurinShroud: you made a case thats all

TurinShroud: anyone can make a case

TurinShroud: and Jerome quotes 1 john 5 7 too

TurinShroud: how about there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

TurinShroud: Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.

TurinShroud: but you tried to tell me it doesnt exist

Dr Onomatopoeia: lool…i didn’t say it didn’t exist..i said it’s something added to scripture

Dr Onomatopoeia: a corruption

Dr Onomatopoeia: and interpolation

TurinShroud: added?

TurinShroud: when

Dr Onomatopoeia: a fact agreed by almost all modern scholars

Dr Onomatopoeia: including Professor Bruce Metzger

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

Dr Onomatopoeia: i told you when

TurinShroud: so how does cyprian quote it in 258 Ad?

Dr Onomatopoeia: we had a discussion on it

Dr Onomatopoeia: and you went completely silent

Dr Onomatopoeia: not knowing what to say or how to respond

TurinShroud: so?

TurinShroud: because i like to check my facts

Dr Onomatopoeia: stop quoting from those Johannine Comma defenders from KJV etc. on the net

Dr Onomatopoeia: they’re silly

Dr Onomatopoeia: and laughable

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: silly?

TurinShroud: Priscillian (385 AD  As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus

TurinShroud: Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’.”

TurinShroud: lol cyprian in 258 AD says it was written

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin shroud..written where?

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin..scholars like Bruce Metzger have explained

Dr Onomatopoeia: that yes

TurinShroud: he wrote extensively

Dr Onomatopoeia: scholars of old did write the verse

Dr Onomatopoeia: they wrote it!

TurinShroud: you heard of cyprian before?

TurinShroud: WHEN!!

Dr Onomatopoeia: for their own edification

Dr Onomatopoeia: on marginal notes

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: when, not where

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, i know cyprian

Dr Onomatopoeia: no..not when

Dr Onomatopoeia: but whyere

Dr Onomatopoeia: written where?

TurinShroud: yes when

Dr Onomatopoeia: in the gospels

TurinShroud: as cyrpian quotes it

Dr Onomatopoeia: tthe epistles

Dr Onomatopoeia: where?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: it just says written

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: that it was written

TurinShroud: and jerome also

Dr Onomatopoeia: he may very well have been referring to a marginal note

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: when was jerome Turin?

Dr Onomatopoeia: LOL

Dr Onomatopoeia: omg

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

TurinShroud: does it matter?

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, it does

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin..go check up on all ur info first k?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: come back to me when you’ve done that

TurinShroud: did you?

Dr Onomatopoeia: yep : )

TurinShroud: hang on

Dr Onomatopoeia: all right

Dr Onomatopoeia: well i’m gonna have my breakfast

Dr Onomatopoeia: i may come back later

Dr Onomatopoeia: just pm me whatever u need to pm

TurinShroud: it only says

 

 

 

TurinShroud: hey – heard of ibn warraq?

TurinShroud: an interesting fellow

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol turinshroud..by now you should know i am very much aware of things related to Islam and Christianity…much more than you are as a matter of fact

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, i have all his books

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: cool

TurinShroud: do you think the koran is copied from the mishna?

Dr Onomatopoeia: anyway..pm me when u have proper reaasonable responses to anything i’ve posited last night…i’m not interested in your hell and brimstone condemnations…you can join baptist minister pastor phelps if you wanna do that lol

TurinShroud: what was that?

TurinShroud: we were discussing

TurinShroud: how is 1 john 5:7 fake when its quoted by cyprios who lived in 258AD?

Dr Onomatopoeia: nope..we weren’t ..i was slaughtering you with facts on christianity..instead of building up counter responses you start questioning Islam..questioning Islam doesn’t remove all the problems which I informed you of last night..and saying i’ll go to hell certainly does not help ur case lol

TurinShroud: cyprian dorrt

TurinShroud: facts?

TurinShroud: i dont see you refuted anything

TurinShroud: you made a case thats all

TurinShroud: anyone can make a case

TurinShroud: and Jerome quotes 1 john 5 7 too

TurinShroud: how about there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

TurinShroud: Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.

TurinShroud: but you tried to tell me it doesnt exist

Dr Onomatopoeia: lool…i didn’t say it didn’t exist..i said it’s something added to scripture

Dr Onomatopoeia: a corruption

Dr Onomatopoeia: and interpolation

TurinShroud: added?

TurinShroud: when

Dr Onomatopoeia: a fact agreed by almost all modern scholars

Dr Onomatopoeia: including Professor Bruce Metzger

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

Dr Onomatopoeia: i told you when

TurinShroud: so how does cyprian quote it in 258 Ad?

Dr Onomatopoeia: we had a discussion on it

Dr Onomatopoeia: and you went completely silent

Dr Onomatopoeia: not knowing what to say or how to respond

TurinShroud: so?

TurinShroud: because i like to check my facts

Dr Onomatopoeia: stop quoting from those Johannine Comma defenders from KJV etc. on the net

Dr Onomatopoeia: they’re silly

Dr Onomatopoeia: and laughable

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: silly?

TurinShroud: Priscillian (385 AD  As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus

TurinShroud: Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’.”

TurinShroud: lol cyprian in 258 AD says it was written

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin shroud..written where?

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin..scholars like Bruce Metzger have explained

Dr Onomatopoeia: that yes

TurinShroud: he wrote extensively

Dr Onomatopoeia: scholars of old did write the verse

Dr Onomatopoeia: they wrote it!

TurinShroud: you heard of cyprian before?

TurinShroud: WHEN!!

Dr Onomatopoeia: for their own edification

Dr Onomatopoeia: on marginal notes

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: when, not where

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, i know cyprian

Dr Onomatopoeia: no..not when

Dr Onomatopoeia: but whyere

Dr Onomatopoeia: written where?

TurinShroud: yes when

Dr Onomatopoeia: in the gospels

TurinShroud: as cyrpian quotes it

Dr Onomatopoeia: tthe epistles

Dr Onomatopoeia: where?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: it just says written

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: that it was written

TurinShroud: and jerome also

Dr Onomatopoeia: he may very well have been referring to a marginal note

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: when was jerome Turin?

Dr Onomatopoeia: LOL

Dr Onomatopoeia: omg

Dr Onomatopoeia: : p

TurinShroud: does it matter?

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, it does

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin..go check up on all ur info first k?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: come back to me when you’ve done that

TurinShroud: did you?

Dr Onomatopoeia: yep : )

TurinShroud: hang on

Dr Onomatopoeia: all right

Dr Onomatopoeia: well i’m gonna have my breakfast

Dr Onomatopoeia: i may come back later

Dr Onomatopoeia: just pm me whatever u need to pm

TurinShroud: it only says

TurinShroud: the greek evidence is weak

TurinShroud: it doesnt mean its not there

Dr Onomatopoeia: the Greek evidence is more than a thousand years after Jesus

Dr Onomatopoeia: yes, it’s VERY weak

Dr Onomatopoeia: the Greek evidence

Dr Onomatopoeia: is copied from the Latin

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

Dr Onomatopoeia: and the Latin

Dr Onomatopoeia: is considered inferior

TurinShroud: it is in greek manuscripts

Dr Onomatopoeia: by all conservative scholars

TurinShroud: no they are not

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

Dr Onomatopoeia: turin

TurinShroud: lol

TurinShroud: your so fake

Dr Onomatopoeia: i’ve already explained this to you

Dr Onomatopoeia: on mic

Dr Onomatopoeia: why are u christians so forgetful?

Dr Onomatopoeia: lol

TurinShroud: ok you hang on go eat your breakfast

 

——–

I then left for breakfast and asked him to pm me any further info he’d like to share regarding the Johannine Comma. So, he then pmed me the following:

 

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 10:58 PM EST)>> 1stly how old are the greek manuscripts claimed that do not have 1 John 5:7

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 10:59 PM EST)>> “The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, “

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 10:59 PM EST)>> while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:00 PM EST)>> simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original. 

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:01 PM EST)>> The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

 

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:05 PM EST)>> i really have no need to say 1 John 5:7 is authentic, but im not conviced it isnt — i mean Cyprian quotes it and other evidence supports it      ——- i think it is quite possible antagonists tried to eliminate it

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:08 PM EST)>> being able to make a case doesnt make you right, i can very easily conclude the koran is simply plagurized from mishna and pseudopigrapher — are you able to answer that without rhetoric?? but with some kind of proof. by the way it was Constantine that got rid of the roman practice of infantacide apparently

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:11 PM EST)>> i can prove islam false in a thousand ways, that you really have no answer for — you shy away from them and say hesitently ‘its ok if mohammed was under a spell and deluded ” — pride comes before a fall (ive had many ) !

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:13 PM EST)>> and of course i think hell is real, why not remind you of the penalty/result for rejecting God’s chosen method for salvation??

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:17 PM EST)>> if the greek manuscripts ae not available till 1000 years after christ and copied from the latin — why should i trust that above quotations by Jerome . Cyprian (258 AD)Priscillian (385 AD Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD ??? – i dont get it, maybe im thick   

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:25 PM EST)>> and just because someone presents a btter case, doesnt make them right ——— Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'”   

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:25 PM EST)>> Bukhari:V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror.'”   

TurinShroud: <<(11/11/08 11:28 PM EST)>> that reminds me of someone, oh yes — HITLER

Comment:

 

He refused to budge and still insisted that the Johannine Comma or 1 John 5:7 is true and isn’t a later addition into the New Testament. One can understand his obstinacy when one contemplates the result of admitting the fabrication of 1 John 5:7. The result is the admission that the Bible has indeed been changed. And as I informed him in the discourse if it is indeed a fabrication then people were duped into believing that it’s inspired for a thousand and so years. That is indeed something very troubling to consider(for an avid Christian that is).

 

At this point in time I think it is sufficient to merely quote some Biblical scholars and commentaries on the verse in question. I shall endeavour to delve deeper into the subject in a separate article next time, insha’Allah.

 

People’s New Testament:

 

5:7 There are three that bear record in heaven, etc. This verse is not found in the Revised Version or in any ancient MS. It is no doubt an interpolation.

 

Scofield Reference Notes:

 

Margin v. 7

 

It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. 1Jn 5:7.

 

Peake’s Commentary:

 

“The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.”

 

Eederman’s Bible Dictionary:

 

“1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in the KJV) makes it appear that John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form (’the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost’), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no genuine Greek manuscript contains it.”

 

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

 

“an interpolation in the text of 1 John 5. 7 f., viz. the words in italics in the following passage from the AV [King James Version -DM]: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. And there are three that bear witness in [sic] earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.”

It is quite evident the verse is a fabrication as established by the above Bible scholars and commentaries. TurinShroud asked the question if the johannine comma is an interpolation added 1000 years after Jesus then how do I account for the quotations of early church Fathers which he copiously provided. Well, it’s quite simple. The scholars made that verse up for their own edification which later crept into the latin texts. This is a very reasonable assumption compared to that which suggests that it was removed from the Greek texts by heretics as proposed by TurinShroud. First of all, there is no evidence for this and the so called heretics were never the guardians of the manuscripts which are used for today’s Bibles e.g. Codex Sinaticus. Hence, they could not have possibly completely destroyed scriptural texts of this verse if they existed. The fact is there is no early scriptural record of this verse. It is a later addition by scribes. It is indeed a fabrication!

 

TurinShroud with all his bravado said that he can prove Islam false in a thousand ways. To illustrate this he quoted or rather MISQUOTED a couple of hadiths directly taken from Craig Winn’s prophetofdoom website:

 

Bukhari:V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror.'” 

 

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'” 

 

 

TurinShroud is clearly out to spread his devilish agenda. Let us see what the hadiths really say:

 

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 220:

 

Narrated By Abu Huraira : Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

 

The terror is the fear which is placed in the hearts of the disbelievers and enemies of Islam by Allah. The hadith is similar to several verses in the Qur’an such as:

 

It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)! (59:2)

 

Again, it is ALLAH who is God Almighty who cast terror into their hearts so as to make them cower and allow victory for His believers. These were upon those who REBELLED against Him and not just any non-Muslim.

 

As for Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'” 

 

This too is a terrible misquotation. Blatantly made to make it appear as if the Prophet s.a.w. was a terrorist who spread terror.

 

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 009, Book 087, Hadith Number 127

 

Narrated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said, “I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with awe (cast into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping last night, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me till they were put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle left (this world) and now you people are carrying those treasures from place to place.

 

Further more, according to TurinShroud terror which is another word for fear reminds him of Hitler. Okay, let’s see what his Bible has to say about this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I will send My TERROR ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.” (Exodus 23:27 NASB)

 

TERROR and DREAD fall upon them; By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone; Until Your people pass over, O LORD, Until the people pass over whom You have purchased.” (Exodus 15:16 NASB)

 

“You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall FEAR your God: I am the LORD.”(Leviticus 19:14 AKJV)

 

“You shall FEAR the LORD your God, and serve him, and shall swear by his name.”(Deuteronomy 6:13 AKJV)

 

“Then the fame of David went out into all the lands; and the LORD brought the FEAR of him on all the nations.”(1 Chronicles 14:17 NASB)

 

“And the FEAR of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.”(2 Chronicles 17:10 NASB)

 

“And the TERROR of God was on all the kingdoms of the lands, when they had heard that Jehovah fought against the enemies of Israel.” (2 Chronicles 20:29 DBT)

 

And there are NUMEROUS more!!!

 

Finally.

 

 

TurinShroud: its a fair comparison

Dr Onomatopoeia: you’ve nailed ur coffin shut by using that comparison

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

TurinShroud: its a fair comparison

TurinShroud: so whats the problem?

Dr Onomatopoeia: take care and i hope you’ll be guided one day…i will pm you the link to the article

Dr Onomatopoeia: when it’s completed

Dr Onomatopoeia: take care

TurinShroud: hitler even cites mohammed for inspiration

TurinShroud: guided

TurinShroud: by what?

TurinShroud: what have yuo actually refuted professor?

TurinShroud: nothing so far

Dr Onomatopoeia: Turin..he cited Jesus Christ as inspiration in his mein kampf..thank u for nailing it even more tightly

Dr Onomatopoeia: : )

 

He said it’s a fair comparison and went further saying that Hitler even cites “mohammed” for his inspiration. Well, if that makes Muhammad s.a.w. Hitler- like then on the same principle Jesus is very Hitler-like as we read the following from Mein Kampf spoken by Adolph Hitler at a Christmas celebration in 1926:

“Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews … The work that Christ started but could not finish, I – Adolph Hitler – will conclude.”

TurinShroud aka 15toOne the wolf in sheep’s clothing has been thoroughly and soundly REFUTED! Alhamdulillah!

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “TurinShroud aka 15toOne Christian Evangelist from England UNVEILED!”

  1. Raymond Nelke says:

    What evidence do you have that Mohammed was not suffering from schizophrenia

    What miracles did Mohammed ever perform

    Ray

  2. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    You are not the first person to question Prophet Muhammad’s s.a.w. mental state. In fact, his own people the Quraisy pagans did that along with other baseless accusations such as sorcery. Indeed, great minds often have to face verbal as well as physical harrasements. Albert Einstein was called crazy and Mahatma Gandhi was called crazy, lunatic, beaten up and finally assasinated. Were either Einstein or Mahathma Gandhi mad? The answer is of course NO! Likewise, Muhammad s.a.w. was NOT mentally handicapped. On his account the Arabs who were a NON-NATION became the torchbearers of learning and power in a hundred years. No other civilisation can boast such an awesome beginning as can the early followers of Muhammad s.a.w. Is this the mark of a schizophrenic man? One of the people who tried to revive this insult against Muhammad was Macdonald in his work “Religious Attitude and Life in Islam”. As a response to this my professor Associate Prof. Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan writes:
    “The prophet’s experience could be referred to as a psychopathological case only if the message received through wahy(revelation)appeared bizarre and grotesque; but if it looks quite relevant, coherent and well-organised, the result derived should be entirely different. It is a matter of reality that the Qur’an the Prophet (s.a.w.) received from God is the most cogent work in terms of both the language and the content. The sick mind is never expected to produce systematic and cohesive theories of lfie. No such example can be advanced where an epilepsy patient or a victim of psychosis has ever been able to do normal work while being under the fit. The Qur’an describes itself as Mubin, the meaning of which, as Muhammad Asad puts, is a divine writ clear in itself and clearly showing the truth.
    ‘Is a mentally disturbed person in a position to bring or develop something clear?’ ”

    With regards to the miracles of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. over 300 are attributed to him. But, Muslims usually do not brag about them because those are past events that cannot be verified or studied by anyone today. Why talk about Jesus walking on water when that cannot be logically proven for example? The greatest miracle of Muhammad s.a.w. is the Qur’an. That is his standing and living miracle which anyone today can verify and study. But, if you wish to know about miracles which Muhammad s.a.w. performed like those of Jesus etc. then I’ll show you a few:

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 779:

    Narrated ‘Abdullah:

    We used to consider miracles as Allah’s Blessings, but you people consider them to be a warning. Once we were with Allah’s Apostle on a journey, and we ran short of water. He said, “Bring the water remaining with you.” The people brought a utensil containing a little water. He placed his hand in it and said, “Come to the blessed water, and the Blessing is from Allah.” I saw the water flowing from among the fingers of Allah’s Apostle , and no doubt, we heard the meal glorifying Allah, when it was being eaten (by him).

    Sahih Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:

    Two of the companions of the Prophet departed from him on a dark night and were led by two lights like lamps (going in front of them from Allah as a miracle) lighting the way in front of them, and when they parted, each of them was accompanied by one of these lights till he reached their (respective) houses.

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 517:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    The Prophet said, “While a man was riding a cow, it turned towards him and said, ‘I have not been created for this purpose (i.e. carrying), I have been created for sloughing.” The Prophet added, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar believe in the story.” The Prophet went on, “A wolf caught a sheep, and when the shepherd chased it, the wolf said, ‘Who will be its guard on the day of wild beasts, when there will be no shepherd for it except me?’ “After narrating it, the Prophet said, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too believe it.” Abu Salama (a sub-narrator) said, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not present then.” (It has been written that a wolf also spoke to one of the companions of the Prophet near Medina as narrated in Fatah-al-Bari:

    Narrated Unais bin ‘Amr: Ahban bin Aus said, “I was amongst my sheep. Suddenly a wolf caught a sheep and I shouted at it. The wolf sat on its tail and addressed me, saying, ‘Who will look after it (i.e. the sheep) when you will be busy and not able to look after it? Do you forbid me the provision which Allah has provided me?’ ” Ahban added, “I clapped my hands and said, ‘By Allah, I have never seen anything more curious and wonderful than this!’ On that the wolf said, ‘There is something (more curious) and wonderful than this; that is, Allah’s Apostle in those palm trees, inviting people to Allah (i.e. Islam).’ “Unais bin ‘Amr further said, “Then Ahban went to Allah’s Apostle and informed him what happened and embraced Islam.)” palm trees or other trees and share the fruits with me.”

  3. terrorist says:

    dirty christian liars

Leave a Reply