Jesus In Islam

[Anyabwile]

Anyabwile wrote:
> you agree that the bible is a departure from the original


> or from what is pure or correct


No, I agree that some of the early manuscripts are a departure from the original. 

Wow thank you, thank you....this is great...


I say....

you agree that the bible is a departure from the original

You say...

No, I agree that some of the early manuscripts <b>are a departure from the original.  </b>

So you're confirming again, that the parts of the bible written by hand (All of it) i.e <b>Manuscripts </b> are a <i>departure from the original</i>. The defenition of this is.....


C..O....R....R....U....P....T


Until we can get past this and establish together exactly what corruption means than <b>any corrupted verses i present to you, will not be accepted as being corrupted </b>obviously. I'm happy to discuss this corrupted verses etc, but you'll agree theres no point in me bringing a corrupted verse to you, if we have different definitions of the word corrupted. Let's handle this situation first...stop trying to escape your error. We all make errors what's the problem?


But don't forget until we move on by you either 1) wanting to change your current responses to me (which is fine) 2) Admitting you have a different defintion of corrupt to me and the Merriam Webster dictionary of English Language. Then you are agreeing with me, that the Bible is corrupt.


My suggestion would be go away and have a think about what your responding with before you post. This topic and page and me will all still be here a bit later or tommorow Insha Allah. Honestly, just think before you respond next time, give your self a second to think about what you're typing. Because it looks like i'm tricking you into looking stupid, which is not what i am trying to do. Just trying to move on from this little snag we're caught at so we can continue.