Conversation with a Muslim: Bible reliability (Part 1)

Me: Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. We're all sinners and we all deserve God's punishment. No amount of good deeds can ever erase your sin. But God is gracious and loving so He has provided a way for us to be saved. You must believe in Jesus Christ.

Muslim: Why is your version of God so cruel that he can't just forgive Adam without killing his own son? Why is it that the only way he can satisfy his own thirst for redemption is by killing an innocent?

Me: The God of the Bible is infinitely just. He cannot simply let sin happen and then pretend it didn't happen. If He did that it would tarnish His holy character and lessen His righteousness and justice. What would we say about a human judge who merely excused every criminal who came into his court? We could not say justice was being done if he allowed murderers and thieves to go free with no punishment. God loves to demonstrate mercy and it is available to anyone who wants it, but He will not set aside His holy justice in order to do it. God established a system of substitutionary atonement so that sinners like you and me would not have to pay the penalty ourselves but instead He would allow another to take our place. This is not cruelty, it's pure beautiful love. How can you say it's cruel of Him to provide a way out of the punishment that we deserve? He loved the world so much that He sent His only Son to die. Jesus volunteered to give His life on behalf of anyone who will believe that He has done everything necessary to gain eternal life. Jesus is the fulfillment of the sacrificial system that God setup in the beginning. The goats and lambs of the Old Testament were only a shadow of the perfect sacrifice that Christ would provide. The cross of Christ is where we can see how serious God is about sin and justice, while also seeing His amazing grace, love, and mercy.

Muslim: Say it's Old Testament times. I go and kill some people let's say hypothetically. And the parents are angry. So I slaughter a Lamb and now God is happy? Sucks for the parents? Or what if I do something like that today? Just say Jesus is God and again, too bad for the family?

In Islam we believe there are sins to God and sins to other people. If you commit a sin to God he can forgive you without demanding blood. Because he is most forgiving. No limits to his forgiveness. If you commit sin to a person you have wronged the person by taking away his rights and you have wronged God by going against his laws. God can forgive his portion without killing anyone. But to be forgiven for wronging the other person you have to make it up with them. Basically have to find a way to have them forgive you in this life otherwise on the day of judgement sins and good deeds will be traded amongst each individual until all wrongs that everyone has done to each other has been paid for

Me: Check Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17, Leviticus 24:21. The Old Testament penalty for murder was public execution and the family of the victim would throw the first stones. You couldn't murder someone and then make a sacrifice to undo it. The same goes for rape and other serious crimes like this. You would be put to death and then you would face God as your Judge. As for today, if you commit murder today you'll go to jail and depending on where you live you may also get a death penalty. And again you would face the Judge. Just saying "Jesus is God" will do nothing for you at all. Those are only words. God knows if someone is sincere or if they're lying. The Bible talks about fake Christians who go to hell so it's not as if they are tricking God by using some kind of legal loophole. There is an ultimate form of justice that happens after we die. God will judge every action, thought, and word, and He will do it perfectly and righteously. All the secret motivations of the heart will be revealed so this hypothetical person is going to hell forever because they did not believe the gospel. They were not actually converted or changed.

Muslim: we do share the belief that nobody is capable of earning heaven just from their good deeds. But our reasons differ. You say it's because every man is a sinner. We say it's because even if a man spent his whole life doing only good and spending all his extra time in prostration to God this would not even be enough to pay for the eyes/vision that God gave him. But those who obey God and seek his forgiveness frequently and do with sincerity, God promises that he will grant them paradise by his mercy. God magnifies good deeds but does not magnify bad deeds

but theoretically a person could kill 50 people, go to jail and await the death sentence. Then find God in jail and sincerely repent and believe what you say right? So what happens then? I mean he sincerely believes that Jesus is God now. Does that mean too bad for those who were wronged? Besides I think the Islamic view clears these gaps in logic pretty tightly tbh

Me: The Bible does discuss certain people who were guilty of heinous sins and abominable acts of evil but God had mercy and brought them to repentance. So yes theoretically someone could murder 50 people and then have a sincere conversion if that's God's will for them. The penalty for his 50 murders would fall upon Jesus Christ. This is the very reason Christ volunteered His life, so that anyone who believes in Him can have forgiveness no matter how sinful they've been, and even afterward we can continue coming to Him to be cleansed of our daily sins. He came to save sinners from the penalty they owe. Either Jesus paid for the sin, or you will pay for it yourself. You ask "Does that mean too bad for those who were wronged?" Not at all. God will judge righteously in every case. No sin goes unpunished. In the end nobody will have a complaint. I don't see any gaps in logic.

Muslim: The people who died did not ask to die though. So if he found Jesus sincerely you are saying that Jesus steps in and says I clear you of your sins, but the people who died and their family's have no power to overturn Jesus decision? In Islam we say the wrongs you do to others will be paid for on the day of judgement by transferring good and bad deeds between people. And there is no get out of jail free card that can save you from that.

Me: As Judge, God decides how everyone will be repaid for their deeds. There is no "get out of jail free card that can save you" in Christianity either. Mercy is available to anyone who turns to Jesus for their salvation, and the eternal consequences for their sins will be placed on Him. So in their case justice has been served. For everyone else justice is served by them going to hell. There are different degrees of hell too. Some people will have it a lot worse than others. Likewise there are different rewards in heaven. I don't understand what you mean when you say "but the people who died and their family's have no power to overturn Jesus decision". God's decision is that anyone who places their faith in Jesus will be forgiven. Nobody is overturning anything. There is One Judge and all of His decisions are final. Everyone will see justice done.

Muslim: I would ask you to sincerely request that the one true God of all the prophets guide you to the truth. Use the words "The one true God" and be sincere about it. If it guides you to the Trinity then so be it. I'm not the one who guides I can only give the message. As a Muslim I already do this and try to be sincere as it is ordered on me and all Muslims in the Quran chapter 112

Me: The Quran says this:

5:48 "To thee [the people of the gospel] We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee."

10:94, “If thou were in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.”

Why do you reject what the gospels say when the Quran tells you to listen to what it says? Muslims claim that the text has been corrupted but we have ancient copies of scripture from the time of Muhammad and we can compare it to the Bible today. They say the exact same things. Why do you not repent and believe the gospel as you have been commanded by God in the New Testament as well as in the Quran? Why do you reject the system of substitutionary atonement established in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament?

The Quran teaches:

No one can change Allah’s words (6:34; 6:115; 18:27)

Jesus was given the gospel by Allah (57:27)

The Quran confirms the Gospels (5:48)

So, if the Quran confirms the Gospels which says that Jesus was crucified (Matthew 27:26–31; Mark 15:15–20; Luke 23:32–34; John 19:17-18) but the muslim scripture says Jesus was not crucified (Surah 4:157), then the Quran is false because it contradicts itself and it contradicts the Bible. By saying the Gospels are false, the Quran denies its own teaching. Therefore Islam is false. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. God has overlooked your ignorance until now. Be reconciled to God through faith in the only Savior. Without faith in Christ no one will see heaven.

Muslim: actually no, the gospels were hand picked selectively in the 4th century, hundreds of years after Jesus already left this Earth. The Injeel is the message from God almighty, given to Jesus. The gospels are people's attempts at preserving that message but sadly only a few Gospels remain. Some Christian scholars say there were thousands in circulation during early Christianity.

regardless none of what you said is a valid excuse to not try what I suggested. Just ask the one true God sincerely to guide you. And if it brings you to Trinity so be it. Only God can guide not me

Me: I have respected you enough to thoroughly answer all of your questions in this conversation. I would ask you to show me the same respect by doing the same for me. You didn't answer the questions I asked and you didn't give a defense of your scriptures which tell you to believe what the New Testament says. The gospels were not hand picked in the 4th century. That is a lie. I know you probably think the Council of Nicea did this but there is zero evidence to support it. You have been lied to and I plead with you to check into this. It's something anti-Christians spread but there is absolutely no evidence of it. All you would have to do is show me some evidence, something written at Nicea which would show them doing this. It does not exist. There is no serious scholar who would say there were thousands of potential gospels. I could easily say there are scholars who believe Muhammad was never a real person, and scholars who say the Quran is made up of fantasies, and scholars who say islam is from demons. That won't get us very far though will it? The point of my last comment was that the Injeel is in the New Testament and you are told to listen to it but you reject it.

You said "regardless none of what you said is a valid excuse to not try what I suggested. Just ask the one true God sincerely to guide you. And if it brings you to Trinity so be it." The Bible never says to test God in this way, and even though I'm not an expert on the Quran I'm pretty sure the Quran doesn't even say to do this so where are you getting it from? I'm not asking you to give Christ a chance. I'm telling you that God has commanded you to repent and believe the gospel. To be honest with you, your suggestion is exactly what the mormons tell people to do. I tell them the same thing I told you. God has never told people to reach a decision about the truth in this manner. And no apostles or prophets ever asked people to give God a chance. We are commanded to obey God and believe his message. That message is: repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Muslim: Qur'an chapter 1 and chapter 112 together are enough to answer your claim that the Quran does not ask you to ask the one true God for guidance. Chapter 112 describes God of Islam as uniquely one with no co-equals and no sons or parents. Chapter one is a prayer for guidance from Allah (Allah is defined in chapter 112).

The scholars speak of a Q source. They believe Q source would be the works that the 4 gospels we have today were based on. They came to this conclusion by critically analysing the 4 gospels and determining that it makes most sense to understand the gospels were chronological to some degree and actually used the previous one to base itself on. But a common misconception is that Q source is a single book or gospel. That assumption is not necessarily true and the scholars have said they believe it does not have to be a single gospel. It makes much more sense that many people attempted to write their version of Jesus story and everyone who did this made an attempt to base their work on earlier works in an attempt to represent the true message of Jesus. I have read 2 books on this topic so do not accuse me of making stuff up.

Ironically we do not need to look past the 4 gospels today to find contradictions. One such contradiction is in the story of when Jesus is amongst some children, places his hand on their heads and then a man asks him about eternal life and goodness.

Mark and Luke claim Jesus said

"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

But then Matthew claims he said (in the exact same context)

"“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good."

This is proof of Jesus being misquoted. Mark and Luke are wrong or Matthew is wrong or they are all wrong. Somebody did commit blasphemy (according to Christians) though that's certain Christian scholars claim this was Matthew's attempt to convey the message of Jesus in a way that suited his opinion better. Maybe he had some compelling evidence it's impossible to know for sure. His methodology was not documented (Also Matthew is the name of the Gospel not the author. These gospels were scribes attempts at representing Matthew's opinion and there is no historical evidence it was written first person by any disciple)

also you misquoted Qur'an

5:48 "And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed ..."

The Qur'an is God's words verbatim spoken directly to Muhammad (s.a.s). So when it says "And unto thee we have revealed" the "thee" in that sentence is Muhammad (s.a.s). Anyone who doesn't cherry pick verses would know this is always happening in the Quran.

Even chapter 112 when it starts as "Say 'Allah is one'", it's technically commanding Muhammad (s.a.s) to say it. Because it was revealed in a specific context where he was asked about who God is and Allah revealed that chapter by commanding him to say it. It is only by us ascribing to the religion of Islam that we are also commanded to say it.

So going back to the verse it's claiming Qur'an is a scripture with truth. And it confirms what Allah has revealed to other prophet's. I have no issue with that. My claim is the gospels do not sufficiently represent what was revealed to Jesus.

Note the verse also claims the Quran is the watcher over the old true scriptures. So he should judge what is left the the old scriptures (or what people claim is left) by using the Quran as a watcher

anyway I wanted to avoid all this because it's things that have been said a million times and honestly, I still don't see why any of it is a reason to not ask one simple thing. Just sincerely ask the one true God to guide you. And wherever that leads you then so be it. Not sure what's wrong with doing that

Me: Are the prayers in chapter 1 and chapter 112 written to unbelievers? No of course not, it's for muslims. You must already believe in allah to pray those words. But I am not a muslim so this has no bearing on me at all. You're telling me as an unbeliever to pray this as if I already believe in allah but I don't. Allah has no son, but God says He does have a Son in the injeel which you reject. The Christian message is that God does have a Son but you make God a liar by believing someone who came 600 years later.

I'm fully aware of the Q theory and it sounds really good to anyone who wants to believe it. The only problem is there's zero evidence of it. No one can show a single shred of proof that such a document (or documents) ever existed. It was invented by scholars who had an agenda. It's a fantasy.

So now you want to totally shift the conversation to the alleged contradictions in the Bible? Let me ask you this question. Before you pasted that information, did you bother to look at the Christian answer to this supposed contradiction? Are you aware that a mere rephrasing is not a contradiction? A contradiction would be if Matthew says Jesus is good, but Luke says Jesus is not good. What you listed is just different people saying the same thing in a slightly different way. How is that a contradiction?

Do you realize that I can do the same thing with the Quran? How about this. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing?

“Created man, out of only a clot of congealed blood,” (96:2)

“We created man from clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26)

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (3:59)

“But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35)

“He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4)

Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur’an? Yes and No at the same time?

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things,” (2:256).

“And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, – that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith,” (9:3).

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” (9:29).

The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses? The Quran can't seem to make up its mind.

“And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam,” (39:12).

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee.” Allah said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me.” When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (7:143).

“And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam,” (2:132).

How do you respond to these contradictions in the Quran which is supposed to be perfect?

You said "I wanted to avoid all this". It will be easy next time if you want to avoid it by just not saying anything to provoke a conversation. Next time you see a Christian message on youtube you can think it over and decide if you are actually prepared. Hopefully you will not hesitate to talk but maybe you will make sure what you're saying is accurate.

"Just sincerely ask the one true God to guide you. And wherever that leads you then so be it. Not sure what's wrong with doing that" My friend, every religion can say this. As I mentioned already it's the exact same thing mormons tell people. Lots of people from lots of religions will tell you to just pray and see what God reveals to you, or something similar. But the God of the Bible has spoken clearly. You don't have to pray and wait for something to happen. His words are written and His will has been made known. Just read it and you'll have His guidance. That's where you have gone so wrong. You abandoned His guidance in exchange for a religion that came 600 years after He finished revealing His will to mankind. Your religion contradicts God and makes Him a liar. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

Muslim: Mark and Luke's version of what Jesus said suggest Jesus was claiming that he is not God. Matthew is rewording it in an attempt to remove this perception.

This is clear evidence of tampering.

Also you claimed that I changed the subject to contradictions. But the reason I brought this particular example is because it showed the type of reasoning that Scholar's used to conclude that the Gospels were based on each other and that there was some kind of chronology to them.

The argument is Matthew tried to change the words of Jesus to better suit an idea of Jesus that claims he is God. and that happened by changing Jesus quote from

"Why do you call me good ... only God is good"

to

"Why do you ask me about what is good"

Mark and Luke's account seems to suggest Jesus is implying he is not God. So Matthew (the gospel) comes along (from a different point in time) and decides to change Jesus words because in his opinion (and his research which he didn't document) Jesus must have been misquoted.

Somebody did misquote Jesus though we know that for a fact. And in this case it does change the potential implied meaning of what Jesus said there are gospels referred to by name in ancient scriptures and manuscripts that do not exist today. This, combined with the textual criticism that Christian scholars use to constantly update your Bible are the evidences that the Q source existed. It's common sense combined with hints/ references to lost gospels that confirm this as for the contradictions, saying I am the first to bow after someone else claimed to be the first to believe is hardly a contradiction.

If I win a race in 2020 I was first in that race. Then in 2021 someone else wins and he says I came first. It's this a contradiction? Muhammad (s.a.s) was the beginning of something big, and of that something he was the first to bow. And him saying that is a form of deep expression. Same as Moses (a.s). He was the start of something big and he was the first to believe in his time.

the contradiction I pointed out it's hardly a drop in the sea. There are even flat out numeric contradictions in the Bible.

Did Solomon have 4000 or 40000 stalls?

1 Kings 4:26 vs 2 chronicals 9:25

Was Jehoiachin 8 or 18 years old when he began to reign over Jerusalem for 3 months?

2 Kings 24:8 vs 2 Chronicles 36:9

How did Judas die?

Did he hang himself (Matthew 27:5)

or did he fall headlong and his entrails gushed out (Acts 1:18)

Your Bible is littered with contradictions

The reason its strange that you are not agreeing to sincerely ask the one true God for guidance is because you claim to already believe that...

You claim the Trinity is one God so what's the problem with saying, please the only one God, please guide me to the truth whatever it might be. This is not something that only Muslims should ask for. This is something humans should be asking for

Me: You're not getting the point. I can also appeal to scholars. I can also bring up textual issues and accuse the Quran of having contradictions. You have no evidence of the things you believe. You make claims but you don't show proof. You believe in this Q theory that liberal unbelieving scholars invented. These same scholars who invented Q theory would tell you that the Quran contains numerous errors and they might even tell you Muhammad was never a real person. Why do you appeal to scholars who reject islam and reject muhammad? You believe the Bible has been corrupted but there is no proof. Show me manuscript evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist. Your entire religion is based on something that you wish was true but it's built on myths.

The Bible says today the same thing it said 2000 years ago. We have 100% of the evidence on our side and you have zero on your side. We are fully aware of the contradictions you think are in the Bible and we've been talking about them for so long. Have you bothered looking at our answers? I doubt it. You could very easily just google it and have the answers. Why don't you look though? Could it be because you don't want the Bible to be true? As a muslim you have a responsibility to the truth. You're responsible to listen to what the book tells you. The injeel is in the New Testament. God has commanded you to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Muslim: I have already addressed this point of evidence. There is zero historical evidence that the Gospels were written by disciples. The earliest manuscripts do not date to the disciples. Nor were the gospels even named after any disciple before the first 150 years after Jesus (a.s).

I also mentioned already that there are references to other gospels in ancient manuscripts but those gospels are nowhere to be found today.

And the pattern of basing your work on another gospel is a pattern shown to be practised even within the 4 existing gospels. So the claim that there were earlier ones holds weight just on that basis alone, let alone the previous evidences mentioned.

I can explain the historical evidence all day but if you just retaliate by saying I didn't give you evidences then not sure what I can do when clearly they are right above this paragraph -_-

there is no evidence that the Bible is 100% correct. The numeric contradictions I mentioned are chalked up to Scribe errors. Explaining away errors in the Bible by saying they are scribe errors does not prove the Bible is right. It's an admission that the Bible is wrong because of Scribe errors

Me: So if there are scribe errors then the book should be rejected?

Muslim: yes, because the only way we were able to find some of these errors is because two separate chapters reported the same fact and differed in their report. It is impossible to know now if a fact that was only reported once (which would be most facts) in the Bible was subject to scribe errors since it is only ever reported once, so if it got changed by scribe errors we have nothing to compare it to to confirm this.

Basically the bottom line is you don't actually know how much of the Bible is wrong due to scribe errors.

And all of this is compounded by the fact that the earliest full manuscript of the Bible is from the 4th century and it's not even written in the language of Jesus. So theres even an undocumented translation process between what Jesus said and the earliest Bible we have.

Me: Then according to your own logic, and according to your own standards, you must now reject the Quran because it contains scribal errors. This is not even denied by muslim scholars like Ibn Khaldun. Before you begin to defend these errors, please remember your own words that you said to me. You said "Explaining away errors in the Bible by saying they are scribe errors does not prove the Bible is right. It's an admission that the Bible is wrong because of Scribe errors". Now you are left having to explain away the scribal errors in the Quran, which according to you, means that the Quran is wrong.

https://answering-islam.org/Authors/Newton/scribal.html

Muslim: see this is your poor attempt at deception. You conveniently leave out that the official Qur'an does not have scribe errors. Meaning if we do find that a new copy of the Qur'an was published and there were scribe errors in their we would have an official Quran to compare it against in order to confirm any scribe or printing errors and be able to remove them.

The OFFICIAL Bible has been proven to have numeric errors that have been chalked up to Scribe errors. We don't actually have any way to determine if Solomon had 4000 or 40000 stalls because the original is the one that has the Scribe error (not the original message but the original manuscripts). We don't even have a manuscript in Jesus language that dates anywhere near to his time. The earliest manuscripts are in Konaic Greek

This is a critical difference. And you deceptively chose to ignore it

Me: You just explained away the scribal errors, so you have now proved that the Quran is wrong according to your own standards. I would like to know what you're calling the "Official Bible". I've been a Christian for around 20 years and I've never heard anyone refer to "the Official Bible" so what are you talking about? Which translation do you think is official?

The earliest New Testament manuscripts are in Koine Greek because that was the language people spoke during that era, and because it's the language of the Old Testament which Jesus and the apostles used. Every time the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, it's quoting from the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Very few people in the ancient world spoke Aramaic. Why would God send out his message in a language that only a handful of people speak? On the contrary, Koine was the language of the entire Roman Empire which was an enormous empire that reached from Asia, into Africa, all the way through Europe. So of course the message was written in Koine so that everyone could understand it. It was meant to be read, understood, and copied, by anyone who was literate. If the New Testament had been sent out in any other language besides Koine, it would never have spread across the world as God intended, and we also wouldn't have the gargantuan amount of manuscripts available to study today. This is a strange issue for you to even mention as if it's some kind of problem for us.

Christians don't have the same problem that muslims have with their scripture. There was never a Christian version of a man like Uthman who gathered up and burned all of the different versions of the Quran. We are completely open about the fact that there are scribal errors in the manuscripts, and we talk about it publicly, write books about it, debate about it. The original message is in the manuscripts that we have, and we can determine the original meaning by comparing manuscripts. Dr. James White often compares this to solving a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle but you have 1050 pieces. By this we can know for absolute certain that we do have the original readings from our scripture, but muslims don't have that certainty because Uthman burned everything that could have been compared. This is not at all a boon to your position but rather it's a very damaging blow.

Muslim: Christians cannot avoid the fact that they have scribal errors because they have contradicting manuscripts none of which date back to the time of Jesus. They need to sift through mountains of documents that are in disagreement with each other to try and place the writings as early as possible, knowing that it's impossible to place it to the time of Jesus, but it's not impossible to at least try.

Uthman (r.a) was a companion of the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s) and not just that, one of the closest (after a select few) to the prophet (s.a.s). He learned Quran first hand from the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s) himself and everybody is in unanimous agreement that he memorised entire Qur'an, along with thousands of other companions in the time of the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s). So there is no issue if he standardized the Quran right? Christian's wish the disciples had standardised the Bible for them because it would have saved them the troubled of needing to sift through mountains of documents to figure which one has scribal errors, which one doesn't, knowing they will never be able to be sure they done their job right because the manuscripts don't even date as far back as to Jesus time.

We literally have documented lists of all the companions who memorised the Qur'an and their biographies. Christian's have a broken puzzle with a mountain of missing pieces that's not even in the language of Jesus and the only "complete copy" of that puzzle they have is dated to over 300 years after Jesus. No wonder they are still trying to solve it to this day...

The reason I said "Official Bible" is because it's not just some random new version of the Bible. It's the King James Version. The most widely accepted version. And even if a copy of KJV was issued by some new publisher that had a printing error, you could bring it back to the official KJV by comparing. Problem is, the official KJV and many other official Bibles btw, have these numeric contradictions and the officials chalk them up to scribal errors.

This goes back to what I said about the manuscripts. The reason the KJV has these errors is because the manuscripts have those errors. Which means you cannot avoid them. They are there to stay and it's impossible to know how deep the problem goes.

Me: You said we have "contradicting manuscripts". The Christian message is this: All humans are sinners and we're all going to hell if left alone, but God loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that anyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. We're saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, not by our own good deeds, because nobody can ever be righteous enough on their own. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and the Jewish law. He lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was dead in the tomb, was resurrected, appeared to many people, and then ascended into heaven where He now acts as our mediator. That's the biblical gospel in a nutshell. Now please show me a manuscript that teaches something "contradictory" to that message. Let me see the "contradicting manuscripts" that you referred to. Since you say there are "mountains of documents that are in disagreement with each other". Show me these contradictory manuscripts that disagree. I'm not talking about things being misspelled, or a scribe who omits something or adds something to a manuscript. I'm talking about contradictions and disagreements because that's the claim you made. Those are the words you used. Please show me those.

Your comments about Uthman and his relationship to muhammad, his knowledge of the Quran, his memory of orally transmitted information, and anything else about the man is completely irrelevant. The fact is he gathered and destroyed other versions of the Quran and removed any possibility for us to be able to examine the documents. You think this is a positive thing but it looks extremely suspicious to anyone looking at it objectively. You said "Christian's wish the disciples had standardised the Bible". There are probably some ignorant Christians who wish for this but it would be because they've never thought it through and they don't realize what they're asking for. It would be because they don't realize how ingenious the way God transmitted the New Testament was. He made it so there's no way for us to miss the message or lose track of it because it was not left for a single man or group of men to determine the truth and destroy everything that they didn't want people to see.

"Christian's have a broken puzzle with a mountain of missing pieces". What missing pieces? What are you talking about? Show me how you can even know that there's something missing from the gospel. You make it sound like we just can't know anything about the gospel, as if there are all these wildly different versions of the Bible and no one knows which one is legitimate. Why do you think there are "missing pieces" of the Bible? What information do you think these missing pieces would contain?

"not even in the language of Jesus". I already explained this but you ignored it. Why in the world would God send out His message of salvation in a language that hardly anyone in the world would understand? That would make no sense at all. Koine was the language of the world at that time, so why do you think Jesus couldn't speak Greek? As I said it was the common language of the civilized world. The word koine even means "common". Why does it matter to you which language the New Testament was written in? And why are you assuming Jesus didn't speak Greek?

You said "the only complete copy of that puzzle they have is dated to over 300 years after Jesus". The books of the New Testament were written on scrolls at first. Christians are actually the ones who made codexes popular because they were fond of combining the individual gospels and epistles into one "book". So of course you will not find a completed New Testament all combined together as a single codex until codexes became popular. You would find them possessing papyrus scrolls though because that was how ancient people wrote. Some of the early Christians had only a few books of the New Testament and some had more. But one very interesting thing is that even if we had no early New Testament manuscripts at all, we could still read the writings of early Christians and we would be able to assemble the entire New Testament from their writings because they quoted from it so heavily that the entire thing is contained in their books. So even if we had zero ancient manuscripts, we could still know that the Bible today still says what it said in the earliest days of Christianity by comparing a modern Bible to what the early Christians quoted from their ancient Bible.

"No wonder they are still trying to solve it to this day". What exactly do you think we're trying to solve? We know the message. We've known it all along. Why are you portraying it as if it's some kind of mystery that we just really can't know? This is exceedingly deceptive of you. If you disagree with what the Bible says, that's one thing. But why are you exaggerating like this? It's very dishonest and it harms your dawah.

If you think the King James Version is our "official Bible" that would explain some of the things you've been saying. The KJV was translated over 400 years ago by people who didn't have many manuscripts available to them. We do not compare modern translations to the KJV in order to correct them. You mentioned numeric contradictions again, but anytime you come to a verse in a modern Bible where there's an issue, you can look at the footnotes at the bottom of the page and it tells you the information you need to know. You act like the ambiguous age of a king in the Old Testament means that the message of the gospel can't be known at all. Whether he was 8 or 18 does not change the message of Christ's cross, and it does not change how the Bible says we are saved. It changes nothing at all about our theology. Those issues are no reason to reject the gospel unless you are desperately looking for reasons to reject it. Look it up for yourself instead of just assuming we can't explain it. There's a logical reason for the differences. But the main point is that we are aware of the differences and we show BOTH of the possible readings. We don't burn the evidence and try to hide it.

"The reason the KJV has these errors is because the manuscripts have those errors". You are correct. They were working from the few manuscripts they had available to them, and those manuscripts did contain some scribal errors which you can still see in the KJV today. I'm glad we can at least agree on something.

"They are there to stay and it's impossible to know how deep the problem goes." In the 400 years since the KJV was translated, there have been enormous advancements in archaeology, knowledge of Greek grammar, papyrology, all sorts of advancements have been made. We have many thousands of ancient manuscripts available now and the KJV translators only had a few. So today we can compare the manuscripts they used versus all of the others that we now have and we can obviously see where they went wrong. And let me remind you that the things they got wrong didn't affect Christian theology whatsoever. The KJV has the exact same God, same Savior, same gospel, the same message as modern translations, and the same message that the very first Christians believed and wrote about outside of the Bible. There is not a single textual variant in existence that would change anything at all about what we believe. If you think there is one, just show it to me. You can't though. It doesn't exist.

I am demonstrating that I respect you enough to thoroughly answer these issues you bring up. Now I'm asking you to show me the same respect by dealing with everything I've said. I asked you some very specific questions that I would like you to answer. Please show me the same respect by answering each of the questions I asked you, and show me everything I asked you to show me. If you are on the side of truth, there should be no reason you wouldn't want to do this.

Muslim: "Since you say there are "mountains of documents that are in disagreement with each other"" I apologise, that was poorly worded, you have mountains of documents and between them there are many disagreements. I did not intend the word "mountain" to be associated with the claim that there are disagreements within them.

"Show me these contradictory manuscripts that disagree" Check out Mark 16: 1-20... Codex Sinaticus is missing a bunch of verses from KJV, guessing the manuscripts they used to get those extra verses don't agree with the oldest surviving manuscript of the Bible. Few similar such examples in the link I shared. What did you think textual criticism involved might I ask? This link also answers this "Show me how you can even know that there's something missing from the gospel"

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/

"The fact is he [Uthman ra] gathered and destroyed other versions of the Quran" It seems you are the one lacking knowledge of Islam and not vice versa. Before Uthman (r.a) standardised the Quran, many random Muslims and Imams were attempting to produce copies of the Quran to distribute to people so those people could read them and memorise it themselves. But this process of publishing the Quran was never formalised and Uthman (ra), having memorised Quran, and many others noticed there were many mistakes in these informal publication attempts. So he appointed a trusted Hafiz (memoriser of Quran) to write the Quran start to end and then had every Hafiz in the Sahaba proof read and approve the copy, before making copies of the copy that he sent out to all the Muslim cities at the time. From thenceforth, the practise of producing copies of the Quran would need to copy the standardised version that Uthman (ra) produced and distributed. I'm not sure what about this is confusing you?

I guess the Christian equivalent would be if each of the 12 disciples produced a full gospel of Jesus life with a committee under their own personal supervision, prood read it, then personally distribute them to the Roman world to be considered the standardised Gospel of Jesus. Then anytime anyone tried to produce a Bible they would have to copy that Gospel of Jesus word for word. But even then it's not as reliable because the disciples didn't memorise Jesus Gospel word for word (or at least nobody claims this) and theres only 12 of them not thousands. In any case I think you are showing your ignorance of Islam more than anything, by cherry picking lines off answering Islam..

"Why in the world would God send out His message of salvation in a language that hardly anyone in the world would understand?" You are the one who is missing the point. How can you attribute the exact words in the Bible to Jesus when you dont have a single quote in his exact words? For instance, did Jesus say "why do you call me good" or did he say "why do you ask me about what is good" ? If he said, "why do you call me good ... only God is good", that sounds like he is implying he is not God.

Everything you said in paragraph 5 is the reason Christianity needs to complete a puzzle and Islam does not. The Quran is literally Gods word spoken through the mouth of Muhammad (s.a.s) and was memorised and standardised by the companions (pbut) in their time. Not 300 years later. All the problems the Bible has is because of the stuff you mentioned. We actually do not have that problem Alhamdulillah.

As for the message of christianity , this message of a Trinity was never preached by any Jew nor was it preached by Muslims, nor was it even preached by any other major world religion (Hindu's, Sikhs, Buddhists). What it is is a misunderstanding, an accident. And it's not a coincidence that of all the Abrahamic faiths the only time any of them claimed a man was God was when that message reached a Pagan nation that believed in Zeus and Hercules, demi-Gods and Emporers that would join the Gods in their ranks after death.

I dont think KJV is your official Bible, my point from the start is you dont have a base that has no errors or contradictions. Which means whatever Bible you choose to be your official Bible you run into the same issues of scribal error, contradictions, not knowing the Gospel authors etc..

Also based on many things you said I think it's important to mention that Jesus never clearly states he was God in the Bible and the Bible never uses the word "Trinity" (except a forged verse in KJV)

Me: I asked you to show me manuscripts that disagree with each other or contradict each other in some kind of theologically impactful way, something that supports your belief that we cannot know the Christian message. I specifically said that I was not talking about anything where a scribe omits or adds something, which is the case with Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Sinaiticus is only 1 document out of thousands. You have made it sound like we can't know the Christian message because of conflicting manuscripts and I'm asking you to show me where any 2 manuscripts teach another God, another savior, another way of salvation, anything at all that would affect Christian theology. The best thing you could come up with is the longer ending of Mark? That part of Mark is one of the most famous textual variants we have, and again just like other issues you bring up, it's a problem in the KJV but modern translations have fixed the issue. My friend, this is becoming tedious because you're not giving me what I'm asking for. And I'm only asking for it because you are telling me it exists. If it exists then show it to me. If you can't show it to me then stop using it as an argument.

"It seems you are the one lacking knowledge of Islam". I have not claimed to be an expert on islam. I'm not here attacking islam like you're attacking Christianity. I am defending Christianity against your attacks. You brought up the issue of manuscripts, so I brought up the issue of Uthman burning the different versions of the Quran to contrast our differences. My side has all of the evidence available for anyone to examine. Your side destroyed the evidence and left us with nothing to examine. That's worth mentioning in this discussion. And you criticized me for linking AnsweringIslam but you didn't even deal with the content I linked. There are plenty of other sites that have the same information. Muslim scholars such as Ibn Khaldun and Hamidullah have recognized the fact that the Quran does have scribal errors. I know you don't want it to be true but that doesn't change reality.

"How can you attribute the exact words in the Bible to Jesus when you don't have a single quote in his exact words?" I keep telling you and you keep ignoring the fact that Greek was the language of that time. I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question why do you think Jesus didn't speak Greek? And not that it matters, but we do have an exact quote from Jesus in Aramaic. Matthew 27:46 quotes Jesus saying "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani".

"As for the message of christianity, this message of a Trinity was never preached..." So now that you've been refuted on your beliefs about textual transmission and biblical manuscripts, you want to totally change the subject again and now you want to talk about the Trinity. If you really want to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity you'll find that I'm extremely prepared, and afterward you will find that it's a biblically inescapable belief. If a person believes everything the Bible says, it is obvious that it teaches the Trinity. But the problem is, you don't believe what the Bible says, so why should I spend any time teaching you a biblical doctrine? When I show it to you, you'll just tell me the Bible has been corrupted, so what's the point? If you really want to know about the doctrine of the Trinity and how it's biblically inescapable, you can read this PDF that I wrote on the subject. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/507579_9f94dd2d2b0b429aa59aed7fa28ba08f.pdf

"it's important to mention that Jesus never clearly states he was God in the Bible and the Bible never uses the word "Trinity"". Thanks for the information. I suppose I should also tell you that the Quran never has the word "monotheism" in it but muslims call themselves monotheists. And also Muhammad never said the exact words "I am the final prophet and there will not be any other prophets coming after me." So according to your logic and your standards, that means monotheism should be rejected and it means that muhammad is not the final prophet right?

Muslim: Muhammed (s.a.s) did say in those words that he is the final prophet and no-one will come after him. And the Qur'an defines clearly monotheism in chapter 112 succinctly in 4 verses. Bible never does this. Anyway it's clear now that you are not interested in adding to the discussion. I answered all your points and all you did was repeat the exact points that I addressed. So I will kindly point you to my previous message which answered those points already and bid you farewell.

I think you have a lot to think about. Especially the Uthman (ra) incident which despite me explaining in extreme detail you still don't seem to understand. Also, good luck to your scholars btw, they still have a lot of work ahead of them

Me: "Muhammed (s.a.s) did say in those words that he is the final prophet and no-one will come after him". He did not say it in the exact words that I asked for. The reason I'm saying this is to show you how silly your argument was. You said "Jesus never clearly states he was God in the Bible and the Bible never uses the word Trinity. For you it's okay that the word 'monotheism' is not in the Quran because the Quran clearly teaches monotheism even without using that exact word. But when it comes to the Bible you don't allow us the same courtesy. It does clearly teach Trinitarianism even though that word is not used. And the Bible does clearly teach that Jesus is God. Read the PDF I linked.

"And the Qur'an defines clearly monotheism in chapter 112 succinctly in 4 verses." But we're not talking about what it defines, we're talking about an exact word. According to your own standards it doesn't matter what it teaches. It has to use the exact word. By now anyone reading this thread will see your obvious double standards.

"Bible never does this" I linked you a PDF. All you have to do is read it and you'll see you're wrong.

"it's clear now that you are not interested in adding to the discussion." That's a very disingenuous statement to make. Anyone who reads this thread will see whether this is true or not. It's painfully obvious which one of us is interested in truth and evidence, and which one of us is only interested in spreading misinformation and outright lies. I have done my best to treat you with fairness and respect, and I have tried my best to interact with every one of your attacks against Christianity.

"I answered all your points and all you did was repeat the exact points that I addressed" This is a bold lie. Anyone who reads this thread will be able to see you are lying. I asked you repeatedly to address certain things that you repeatedly ignored all the way to this point. You never answered why you think Jesus couldn't speak Greek, for one example. There were a lot of things you refused to answer. You also completely failed to ever show me 2 manuscripts that teach opposing theologies or contradictory gospels. This was the heart of your argument and you were not able to produce anything. The reality is that 99% of the textual variants are simple misspellings and other grammatical issues that arise when translating one language into another. The other 1% is stuff like the longer ending of Mark, the Comma Johanneum, the Pericope Adulterae, which we are fully aware of and have fixed. There was never a time in Christian history where 1 man or a group of men had total control over the Bible, so there is zero chance of tampering. Your assault on the Bible was relegated to a 400 year old translation that we all know has problems but you were unable to deal with anything modern. So you can pretend that I'm the one who can't deal with your arguments, or you can pretend that I have nothing to add to the conversation, but it's a very transparent attempt to save face in an argument that you have cleary lost.

As we end the conversation I will one more time tell you that the Quran says you are supposed to check it against the injeel. The injeel is found in the New Testament. The New Testament says the same thing today that it said in the time of muhammad. The Christian gospel says that humans can only be saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, not by our own good deeds, because nobody can ever be righteous enough on their own. Every Bible, and every ancient copy of the Bible says the exact same gospel. You had so many chances to show me a single example to the contrary. They all say Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and the Jewish law. They all say He lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was dead in the tomb, was resurrected, appeared to many people, and then ascended into heaven where He now acts as our mediator. They all say repent and believe the gospel. You have been commanded by God to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. He has overlooked your ignorance but you're going to be held responsible if you keep rejecting the gospel. Without faith in Christ, you will not see heaven. You also have some thinking to do. I pray God will do to you the same thing He did to me.

Muslim: Trust me, anyone with a brain who reads this (which nobody will read this tbh) will know flat out that you dodged all my points. Especially in the last response before the discussion ended

Me: Instead of leaving it so vague you could specify which of your points you think I dodged and I will gladly interact with it right now. You brought up Codex Sinaiticus and the longer ending of Mark, which I responded to. You told me I need more education about Uthman. Okay, I'm not claiming to be an expert in that area but that doesn't have anything to do with your claim that the Bible is too corrupt for us to know its message. You brought up the issue of the language of the New Testament, and your strange belief that it should have been written in something other than Greek. I explained this a couple of times, and I asked you questions about it that you repeatedly ignored even up until this very moment. I even gave you a quote from Jesus in Aramaic that you asked for but you ignored that as well. You brought up the Trinity and I gave you a PDF that answers all of those issues. You tried to divert attention from my point that muhammad does not use the exact words I asked for, or the fact that the Quran doesn't use the word 'monotheism'. You totally missed the point of my mentioning this. I was showing you that you have a double standard. You apply one standard to the Bible that you would never apply to the Quran. That's the essence of dishonesty. So which of the points from that comment do you think I dodged? Show it to me and I will deal with it now. You're not getting out of this conversation by pretending that I'm dodging anything. I'm the one constantly asking you to prove what you're saying, and then when you give me your answers I have thoroughly refuted them. Either show me the points you think I dodged or remain silent and let the conversation end. It will end whenever you stop responding.

Muslim: Repeating the same argument is not addressing my points. For instance, I said the oldest manuscripts are not in Jesus language. You said that language of Jesus was not commonly used at the time. So God chose a more commonly used language. So I explained my point that you can never know Jesus exact words because you have quotes in a different language to the one he spoke and even gave an example, did Jesus say "Why do you call me good ... only God is good" or did he say "Why do you ask me about what is good ... only God is good"; One of these implies Jesus says he is not God. If we knew his exact words (in aramaic) would clear this issue for us.

You didn't address my point. You just went off about how you already explained that God chose a language that addresses a greater audience. Ignoring the issue.

The Uthman (ra) case was exactly the same. Seems to me you are just trying to drag the convo indefinitely so as to bore me so you can get the last word in and call it a day. Congratulations I'm bored of you

Me: Maybe you have a different idea of what it means to dodge something? Giving an answer that you don't like isn't dodging. If you asked me a question that I totally ignored, that would be dodging, just like you've done with a lot of my questions. You are the dodger here, not me. So let me go through your entire comment now, so you'll not have a basis to make this accusation again.

"Repeating the same argument is not addressing my points." You should take your own advice on this.

"For instance, I said the oldest manuscripts are not in Jesus language." For the 4th time now I will ask the same question you keep ignoring. Why are you assuming Jesus didn't speak Greek? It was the common language of that time. Everyone in the civilized world HAD TO SPEAK GREEK in order to do business, in order to communicate with people from other countries, in order to understand orders given to them by a Roman soldier, etc etc etc. There are so many reasons that Jesus did speak Greek it's completely absurd for you to think otherwise. And let's not forget another point that you ignored. The Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used was WRITTEN IN GREEK. The burden of proof falls on you if you think Jesus didn't speak Greek. This is such an absurd argument I can't believe you're even using it.

You quoted me as saying that the "language of Jesus was not commonly used at the time. So God chose a more commonly used language." Then you said "So I explained my point that you can never know Jesus exact words because you have quotes in a different language to the one he spoke". This is a moot point because you refuse to answer why you think Jesus didn't speak Greek. In order for you to use this argument you must provide evidence that Jesus didn't speak Greek. Why are you assuming He didn't speak Greek? Why are you assuming He only spoke Aramaic? Why are you pretending that the existence of Aramaic manuscripts would change anything for you?

"and even gave an example, did Jesus say "Why do you call me good ... only God is good" or did he say "Why do you ask me about what is good ... only God is good". When you first mentioned this, you were framing it as a contradiction and I told you it's not a contradiction it's merely a rephrasing. A contradiction would be if Matthew said Jesus is good but Luke said Jesus is not good. So again maybe you think dodging is something different but I did give you an answer to this point. You just didn't like the answer I gave. If you want to contact a Greek grammarian or a professor of ancient Greek and ask them about the textual and grammatical reasons why Matthew and Luke phrase this differently then I would wholeheartedly recommend you do it. It would be a very rewarding thing to do. But again, a rephrasing is not a contradiction, and this passage of scripture does not impact Christian theology. I don't know what more you would expect me to say about this.

"One of these implies Jesus says he is not God." No it really doesn't. It implies that HE IS GOD. Your muslim interpretation of the text forces you to say this, but you're not getting anything from the text that tells you Jesus is not God. Actually there is not a single place in the entire Bible that says Jesus is not God. It says the exact opposite. It explicitly calls Him "God" in numerous places. By Jesus saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." He is forcing the man to recognize that Jesus IS GOD because Jesus IS GOOD. He did not deny that He is good, and He did not say that He isn't God. That's your interpretation but you didn't get it from simply reading the words, you got it from somewhere else. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all portray Jesus as God. Matthew's rephasing of this as "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good" it's obvious that the "one who is good" is God. So they are saying the same thing but saying it differently. If you would read that verse in context along with the rest of the book you would see there's no mystery here at all. All 4 of the gospels portray Jesus as God. That's why Christians believe that Jesus is God, because the Bible is crystal clear about it. There's no question at all that Jesus is the Creator according to the Bible. I know you don't like the answer but there's your answer nonetheless.

"If we knew his exact words (in aramaic) would clear this issue for us." This is such a ridiculous argument it's hard to believe you're still trying to use it. You're telling me if we had New Testament manuscripts in Aramaic then you would believe them? Come on, we both know it would not change a single thing for you. You would still say it got corrupted even if we had Aramaic documents, even if they said everything the Greek says. Jesus spoke Greek. You either have to accept that or keep perpetuating some kind of conspiracy theory that you can never prove. The burden is on you to prove He didn't speak Greek because all evidence that we have suggests that He did speak Greek. You should really stop using this argument because it's pathetic.

"You didn't address my point. You just went off about how you already explained that God chose a language that addresses a greater audience. Ignoring the issue." Your point has been thoroughly addressed. I'm glad you recognized here that I had already explained it once, so that would have been the 2nd time, and now this is the 3rd time. So how can it be said that I ignored your points yet I have answered them repeatedly? You're getting answers but you just don't like them.

"The Uthman (ra) case was exactly the same." I told you already that I brought up Uthman to make a point about the differences between my position having a ton of evidence available, and your position having nothing available because it was destroyed. I never claimed to be an expert on Uthman, or islam for that matter. That has not been my position at all in this conversation. My position is a defense of Christianity, not an attack on islam. Along the way I have shown you things from your own book and from your own religion that refute your own position by using your own standards against you. I'm sorry you can't figure this out. Maybe re-read the thread and you'll see it.

"Seems to me you are just trying to drag the convo indefinitely so as to bore me so you can get the last word in and call it a day. Congratulations I'm bored of you" You're not the first anti-Christian I've ever had a conversation with, which should be obvious from my answers. I have conversations here on Youtube that have been going as long as 6 years and still continuing. I'm sorry you get bored so easily, but maybe next time you think you're going to attack a Christian's beliefs you should be prepared for people like me. I don't give up. Ever. I will keep this going for the rest of my life as long as you keep responding. I will refute each and every bogus argument you try to use. If you think that's dragging the conversation then maybe you should practice expanding your attention span. You can stop any time you want but you're not getting out of this by pretending that I'm dodging anything or that I'm afraid to answer something. You can disagree with my answers but I will not allow it to be said that I dodged anything.

So now I have literally gone through your previous comment word for word and quoted everything you said one line at a time and I've answered everything. The ball is in your court again. You can continue to use bogus arguments and unprovable conspiracy theories and I will keep refuting them, or you can let the conversation end whenever you choose. Repent and believe the gospel.

Muslim: Okay if there wasnt already enough proof that your tactic is to bore me with repitition you just definitively proved it. I gave you a few quick paragraphs and you wrote me an essay. You are not trying to win on arguments, just trying to bore me to stop talking.

I have a life, a job that doesn't have traditional 9-5 schedule and lots of other stuff to worry about. So from now on I'm only going to stick to one topic and only respond to things I think are relevant to my points. I hope this will teach you to address the actual points I made rather than repeat things a million times.

You said why do you assume Jesus couldn't speak Greek. Jesus everyday language was in aramaic. So if the gospel is his life then you would expect a great portion of it to be in Aramaic. Hence most of his quotes would be from another language. So this point is irrelevant and just distracts from the argument because we still have the issue of Jesus mostly being quoted in the wrong language.

You said the verse does not imply he is not God. Then you went even more silly and said it implies he is God. Be honest, if your daughter came to you and said "Dad, you are smart", then you replied "Why do you call me smart... only God is smart" dont you think she might understand that she was wrong to call you smart? So it will imply you are not smart right? But no, according to you she will think that you were implying you are smart.

So my point is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. He is quoted in Greek which its not even proven he can speak it. Even in Greek there are differing quotes of Jesus in the same context. So how do we know what he originally said? I say it's impossible to confirm he is quoted correct. You seem to believe it's impossible for the quotes to be innaccurate in any way

Me: Nobody is making you do this. I have a life too. If you can't handle it then don't get into it in the first place. You criticize me for not answering your points, but when I answer them you criticize me for answering them too thoroughly. Wow man.

"Jesus everyday language was in aramaic" How do you know this? How do you know He didn't speak Greek every day? How do you know He didn't intentionally speak Greek so that the scribes could write His words? Since you reject the Bible how do you know anything at all about Jesus unless it's in the Quran?

"if the gospel is his life then you would expect a great portion of it to be in Aramaic". That's a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise. Scribes were trained in Greek for the obvious reasons that I've already explained. Even if He was speaking Aramaic it would be totally expected that the scribe would translate it into Greek as they wrote His words. There's no logical reason to expect a great portion to be in Aramaic because it would be incomprehensible to most of the people who were meant to read and understand the words. The literate man of the first century was not educated in Aramaic. He was educated in Greek. The purpose of writing it down was so that others could read it. They could only do that if it was written in Greek.

"the issue of Jesus mostly being quoted in the wrong language". Look how far you're willing to go. The wrong language? How can I even reason with a person who thinks this illogically? It's your opinion that Greek is the "wrong language".

"if your daughter came to you and said "Dad, you are smart", then you replied "Why do you call me smart... only God is smart" dont you think she might understand that she was wrong to call you smart? So it will imply you are not smart right? But no, according to you she will think that you were implying you are smart." This analogy is so inaccurate and illogical that it can't even be applied in this context. Goodness is a quality that only God possesses. Let me try and fix your analogy. My daughter comes to me and says "Dad you know everything", and I say "Why do you say I know everything? Only God knows everything." But even this still doesn't work as an accurate comparison because I am not Jesus. I'm not God incarnate. Jesus did not do what I would have done in that situation, or what any believer in God would do. I would have told the man, "Wait a minute I'm not good, only God is good so why are you calling me good?" Jesus didn't do that though did He? Jesus, a Jewish rabbi who was intimately familiar with the Old Testament would have known that scripture teaches there's no such thing as a good man. Psalm 14 for example says there is none good, not even one. But He did not correct the man. He only asked Him why. He was trying to get the man to see that since He is good then He is God. He never denied being good and He never denied being God. He even allowed people to worship Him and call Him God and Lord. That would be completely inappropriate for any mere man.

"So my point is that Jesus spoke Aramaic." I understand your point and I reject it. We've already established that we disagree here. I have all the evidence on my side that Jesus spoke Greek. You have nothing on your side except for wishes and fantasies.

"He is quoted in Greek which its not even proven he can speak it." I already proved it several ways. It was the common language that everyone spoke in that era. You think Jesus was too ignorant? Why is He the only one who doesn't speak Greek? This makes no sense at all. Plus I will mention yet again a fact that you still have not addressed. The Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used was the Greek Septuagint.

"Even in Greek there are differing quotes of Jesus in the same context. So how do we know what he originally said?" You can look at both and understand that they are saying the same thing in slightly different phraseology. The difference between the 2 verses you gave as example have no impact at all on our theology. The Bible says Jesus is God in numerous ways, in numerous different books. The entire New Testament teaches the deity of Christ. It's not just taught in one verse that we aren't sure about. There are no textual variants that affect our theology. I've already told you that.

"You seem to believe it's impossible for the quotes to be innaccurate in any way." Not at all. I have been open about the fact that errors can find their way into a translation of the Bible. We've talked plenty about the KJV's problems so why are you now making it seem otherwise? What you have failed to understand is that we have BOTH POSSIBLE READINGS whenever 2 manuscripts say something differently. If a manuscript differs from others, we can compare them. We haven't lost anything because the information is still there. Maybe in some situations we're not sure which is original but we have both and neither say that Jesus isn't God, neither teach a different gospel, etc etc etc. That's the point. We can know for sure that one of them is correct. We're talking about things that do not impact theology at all.

Take the Comma Zohanneum for example (1 John 5:7). At some point in history a scribe inserted those words into the manuscript he was working on. Maybe he did it on purpose or maybe he wrote it as a note in the margin, we don't know. Then the next scribe gets this manuscript and didn't realize the guy before him added something as a note so he adds it to the text and it becomes part of the transmission of that particular manuscript tradition. But there were numerous manuscript traditions spreading all over the world so his mistake is unique to only that line of transmission. We have all of the other manuscripts to compare it against. That's how we know it's unique only to that particular line of transmission. Modern Bibles do not contain 1 John 5:7 unless it's in a footnote at the bottom of the page. If 1 John 5:7 was the only place in the Bible that teaches the Trinity, you would be totally right to criticize me for believing in the Trinity because that text would be unreliable. But there is no single verse in the Bible that we are stuck having to rely on for any of our beliefs. So no matter what happened in the past with a scribal error, we can know that we still have the correct theology.

Muslim: "How do you know He didn't speak Greek every day?" Because this would be historically inaccurate

None of what you said in paragraph 2 solves the problem of not knowing what actual words he spoke in his own language. The translation can be misinterpreted and even mistranslated. If that wasn't true Matthew wouldnt have disagreed with Mark and Luke about what Jesus actually said.

"But even this still doesn't work as an accurate comparison" you chose your own analogy and then concluded my point anyway... just admit your daughter would understand you are not all-knowing (just as Jesus statement makes any logical person understand Jesus is not God, unless you are biased that is...)

"I have all the evidence on my side that Jesus spoke Greek" there is no evidence that 100% confirms Jesus spoke Greek. It is debated to this day whether he knew more than a few sentences of Greek. The comment about the Greek Septuagint was also ahistorical. I would like some proof of this outrageous claim.

"You can look at both and understand that they are saying the same thing in slightly different phraseology" we have established this to be wrong.

""He is quoted in Greek which its not even proven he can speak it." I already proved it several ways" no you didnt. just because other people spoke Greek it doesn't mean Jesus did. It is not historically established that he spoke Greek its still debated

Again, if you don't have Jesus exact words in his own language then you will have disagreements about what he actually said. Just as Matthew disagreed, and changed his quote.

Me: "How do you know He didn't speak Greek every day?" Because this would be historically inaccurate" That's cute.

"None of what you said in paragraph 2 solves the problem..." Paragraph 2 started with a quote from you, and then everything else is questions that I asked to you.

"the problem of not knowing what actual words he spoke in his own language". We do know His actual words but you reject them. This is only a problem in your imagination. It's not a problem for Christians.

"The translation can be misinterpreted and even mistranslated" That's true of any translation from one language to another. This is not debatable.

"If that wasn't true Matthew wouldnt have disagreed with Mark and Luke about what Jesus actually said." There you go again. There was no disagreement. They all said the same thing in different wording.

"you chose your own analogy and then concluded my point anyway..." If you think that messy illogical analogy did something for your position then what can I say?

"just admit your daughter would understand you are not all-knowing (just as Jesus statement makes any logical person understand Jesus is not God, unless you are biased that is...)" Jesus is completely unique. It's not fair at all to try and force this scenario as if it's an equal comparison. I'm not God but He is. Whatever me and my daughter would do or say is irrelevant. Creating an illogical analogy and trying to force me into it is not a valid argument. It's pitiful that you think this accomplished something for you.

"there is no evidence that 100% confirms Jesus spoke Greek" I can say this about anything. I can say there's no evidence that 100% confirms muhammad was a real person. That's not a valid argument though. Evidence works the other way around. You have to show me the evidence that He didn't speak Greek because I have repeatedly told you the evidence that I have on my side confirming that He did speak Greek.

"It is debated to this day whether he knew more than a few sentences of Greek". Everything is debated. The existence of muhammad is debated to this day. Is that a valid argument? Nope. Do you care that you use double standards? Nope.

"The comment about the Greek Septuagint was also ahistorical. I would like some proof of this outrageous claim." I'm assuming you're talking about this: "The Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used was the Greek Septuagint." The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the Roman Empire. It was translated from Hebrew around 250-300 BC. It was the Bible that Jews all throughout the Roman Empire used. How can you think it's ahistorical that this is the Bible being used during the time of Christ and the apostles especially since the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint? You can easily find proof of this by googling it. I don't even know why you think it's an "outrageous claim" since it's so widely known. One example of Jesus reading the Greek scripture is Mark 7:6-7.

"we have established this to be wrong" No we really haven't.

"He is quoted in Greek which its not even proven he can speak it." I already proved it several ways" no you didnt. just because other people spoke Greek it doesn't mean Jesus did" So you think Jesus was ignorant among His peers. The other educated men spoke Greek but Jesus was stuck with only Aramaic? This is a sad theory indeed. Why would you insult Him like that? Even in Islam you are to respect Jesus Christ. You don't even say peace be upon Him. You disrespect Him at every opportunity.

"It is not historically established that he spoke Greek its still debated". It's solidly established that He did speak Greek. It's only a problem in your ignorant imagination. Everything is debated. The authenticity of the Quran is debated to this day. Does that mean you're waiting for the results of the debate before you'll believe the Quran? Of course not. Because you have double standards.

"Again, if you don't have Jesus exact words in his own language then you will have disagreements about what he actually said." That's your opinion. We do have His words but you reject them.

"Just as Matthew disagreed, and changed his quote." Matthew did not disagree or change his quote. Matthew agrees with the others. How many times will you keep repeating this? You made a big deal about me repeating the same arguments but that's what you're doing. Why is it bad for me to repeat things but not for you? Double standards again.

Muslim: ""The translation can be misinterpreted and even mistranslated" That's true of any translation from one language to another"

A) thanks for finally agreeing to logic...

"Jesus is completely unique. It's not fair at all to try and force this scenario as if it's an equal comparison. I'm not God but He is. Whatever me and my daughter would do or say is irrelevant. Creating an illogical analogy and trying to force me into it is not a valid argument. It's pitiful that you think this accomplished something for you."

A) This is all just excuses to run away from the logical conclusion that what Jesus said implies he is not God

"I would like some proof of this outrageous claim." I'm assuming you're talking about this: "The Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used was the Greek Septuagint.""

A) quoting yourself is not proof

"So you think Jesus was ignorant among His peers. The other educated men spoke Greek but Jesus was stuck with only Aramaic?"

A) Whats wrong with that? Muhammad (s.a.s) only spoke Arabic and didn't even know how to read or write. None of this is disrespectful

"It's solidly established that He did speak Greek"

A) No its not...

"Mark 7:6-7"

A) Couldnt find anything about this verse proving Jesus spoke Greek

"Matthew did not disagree or change his quote"

A) yes he did. We have established this (Matthew 19:17 changes these verses Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19)

Me: "The translation can be misinterpreted and even mistranslated" That's true of any translation from one language to another" A) thanks for finally agreeing to logic..." As if I'm the one with logic issues. Your double standards don't allow you to see that your criticism should also be applied to the Quran.

"This is all just excuses to run away from the logical conclusion that what Jesus said implies he is not God" This is your opinion. You're not even trying anymore. I could use this against everything you've said to me. I can say "This is all just excuses to run away from the logical conclusion that what Jesus said implies he is God". That's not going to get us anywhere though is it?

"quoting yourself is not proof" Compete failure on your part. You get 0/100 for this one. I did not quote myself as proof of anything. You did not specify what you were talking about so I had to assume you were talking about the quote. If you weren't talking about that quote then tell me what you were talking about instead of being cheeky about it.

You said to me: "The 'comment' about the Greek Septuagint was also ahistorical. I would like some proof of this outrageous claim." Since you didn't specify what 'comment' you were referring to, I made an assumption and I said: "I'm assuming you're talking about this: "The Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles used was the Greek Septuagint." And then going with that assumption I answered your question. And since you completely ignored the answer and pretended that I tried to answer it by quoting myself, I'll just copy/paste it for you to read again. "The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the Roman Empire. It was translated from Hebrew around 250-300 BC. It was the Bible that Jews all throughout the Roman Empire used. How can you think it's ahistorical that this is the Bible being used during the time of Christ and the apostles especially since the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint?"

"Whats wrong with that? Muhammad (s.a.s) only spoke Arabic and didn't even know how to read or write. None of this is disrespectful" There's plenty wrong with it. I'm sorry you don't realize how disrespectful you have been to Jesus Christ. It's a true shame. I have spoken with plenty of muslims who honor him by treating Him with the respect He deserves. Even the Quran says that you should honor Jesus does it not? Jesus was purely good, even in the Quran, not just the Bible. Satan was unable to touch Him isn't that correct? Even though you are trying to tell me that Jesus is not good and you brazenly disagree with even your own book. He is worthy of honor, respect and reverence.

You disregard factual evidence that He was an educated rabbi who would have been able to read Hebrew as well as Greek because He was completely immersed in the scriptures which were available to Him in both languages. You will allow everyone else to be educated in this manner but not Jesus Christ. It's extremely disturbing how far you'll go in order to hold onto this point you're making even though it would change nothing about your faith to simply admit that Jesus could read and speak Greek. There is no reason for you to keep denying this. It makes no sense at all.

As for muhammad only speaking arabic, that's not a valid comparison. Jesus lived in Israel during the Roman occupation so there was a reason He spoke more than 1 language. If you respect Jesus why do you not say pbuh? You say s.a.s to muhammad but you don't have the common respect for Jesus that most muslims have. It's shameful for you to frame Jesus as an ignorant person when He was clearly not ignorant at all. He was constantly amazing people with His brilliant mind. Of course He could speak and read the same common language as everyone else. This is so shameful for you. You should sincerely repent for this.

"Mark 7:6-7" Couldnt find anything about this verse proving Jesus spoke Greek" Then you didn't even look for it because all you have to do is search google for something like "Mark 7:6-7 septuagint" for example and the second result is a Catholic article discussing it. Or you could search for "New Testament quotes from Septuagint" and find plenty of stuff. Your inability to find information doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. This is another complete failure for you.

""Matthew did not disagree or change his quote" A) yes he did. We have established this (Matthew 19:17 changes these verses Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19)" You can keep saying this but it will never become true no matter how hard you wish and hope. They do not disagree. To disagree they would have to be saying opposite things.

For example:

Luke: Jesus is good.

Matthew: Jesus is not good.

That's a disagreement. If you had something like that to use against the Bible then it would be worth discussing. But two people teaching the same thing by saying it with slightly different wording is not a disagreement and it's not a contradiction. You can keep denying it but it doesn't change anything.

Muslim: "They do not disagree. To disagree they would have to be saying opposite things" Yes they do, as my analogy of a daughter saying to a father "dad you are smart" then him replying "Why do you call me smart... only God is smart" suggests. In this case the daughter assume she is being corrected and told not to call you smart, therefore it implies you are not smart. You didn't like this analogy though. So you gave your own swapping "smart" with "all-knowing". But that analogy also proved my point. So then you done what I said was the only thing that you could possibly do to change the meaning of the verse. Show bias, you interpreted the verse under the predisposition that Jesus is God. And then used a verse that suggest Jesus is not God to conclude he is God because of your pre-disposition. This is bias.

"The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the Roman Empire. It was translated from Hebrew around 250-300 BC. It was the Bible that Jews all throughout the Roman Empire used" This is not proof that Jesus read the Greek Bible

"Mark 7:6-7" Still couldn't find any evidence that this proves Jesus spoke Greek. But if it's anything like the above evidence then I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat.

Muhammad (s.a.s) was illiterate. Many of his followes could read and write. The Prophet (s.a.s) could only speak Arabic, many of the companions were multi-lingual. Isa (a.s) could speak Hebrew and Aramaic, but probably not Greek. None of these statements is disrespectful. Also I dont always follow the word Jesus with a.s (mainly when talking to Christians) because the idea of what the word Jesus represents is a distortion of what the true individual (Isa a.s) represents. So as long as you see this Jesus as a God we are not necessarily talking about the same thing. Tbh I don't even believe Isa (a.s), one of the mightiest prophets, even uttered some of the things that the Bible claims he did. And it's impossible to know what he did say from the Bible versus what he did not.

Anyway, I explained this point like fifty times. If Mark and Luke quote Jesus as saying "Why do you call me good ... only God is good" it suggests he is separating himself from God. I chose an analogy that proved my point, you didn't like that analogy so you chose your own and it proved my point. Then you said my mistake was the I wasn't biased enough because I didn't pre-suppose that Jesus is God; suggesting that your interpretation is biased. I feel like not much more can be said on this topic since you just aren't getting it. So if you like you can make the final word on this topic (as you love doing - I feel like this is the only thing you have going for you so you milk it as much as possible), otherwise we can move on to something else?

Me: Friend, I have told you that I reject your analogy because it doesn't work. If you really feel you must use some kind of analogy could you at least try to make an analogy that could work here? Sticking with an analogy that your opponent rejects is not going to make your opponent agree with you. I tried to fix the analogy so it would at least be somewhat closer to reality but I specifically said it still does not accurately make a comparison which is what an analogy is supposed to do. And of course I'm biased. So are you. Let's not pretend that we're not biased toward our own position and biased against each other's position.

"Still couldn't find any evidence that this proves Jesus spoke Greek. But if it's anything like the above evidence then I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat." What do you want me to say? I can't control your body and force you to do the research. Here are a few links. I could literally paste dozens but hopefully 3 will be enough to show that there are articles discussing this online? Maybe you'll read them, maybe you won't. Even if you do read them you'll still reject what they say because they disagree with you. I can't do anything about that. Only God can.

https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2017/03/06/what-language-did-jesus-christ-his-apostles-and-early-christians-speak/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/april26/9t5098.html

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/birth-of-jesus/genealogy-and-jewish-heritage/what-bible-did-jesus-use.html

"Isa (a.s) could speak Hebrew and Aramaic, but probably not Greek." Thank you for at least using the word 'probably' instead of saying He definitely didn't. That is at least some level of openness to the possibility that He might have. Thank you.

"None of these statements is disrespectful." Try to see this from my point of view. You're insulting my Master by making Him out to be ignorant among His peers. I'm saying there's no logical or historical reason to believe Jesus couldn't speak at least SOME Greek since we do have quotes from the Septuagint in the New Testament. Aramaic was probably His everyday language, but He would certainly be fluent in Hebrew since He was a rabbi. He would certainly have read from the holy scrolls that were in the temple, which we see Him doing in the New Testament. Those scrolls would be in Hebrew, but He would also have the same exact Greek Bible available to Him that every other Jew in that era had, which is called the Septuagint. There are differences that scholars can point to and they can determine whether an Old Testament passage is being quoted from the Hebrew or from the Greek. It's a fact of biblical scholarship. If you can't accept that, we just have to move along because it's been stated and restated over and again. It is for God to determine which of us is earnestly seeking the truth. It will be revealed on the last day.

I know you view my Jesus as being a different person than your Isa. But we both believe some of the same things about Him that we should be able to agree on. Christians and Muslims both believe in the historical man who was the Jewish Messiah. We both call Him Messiah. We both believe He was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was a Teacher who had disciples under Him, He was rejected by the Jews, and we both believe He was raised to heaven. We even both agree that He is returning some day. So far can we agree on all of this or is there a problem with anything I said so far? I don't want to put words in your mouth and tell you what you believe. Tell me if this is agreeable so far.

"it's impossible to know what he did say from the Bible versus what he did not." Please answer these questions for me. How can you trust what muhammad's followers wrote? Seeing as he was illiterate he didn't even write the words with his own hand. How do you suggest I determine whether the events in the Quran really happened? How do you know muhammad's words were not changed? How can anything from the Quran be trusted since there are several versions of it? How is your situation as a muslim different from the problem that you think I have with the Bible? Help me understand these things.

"it suggests he is separating himself from God" That's your interpretation. We've already discussed this ad nauseum. There are a lot of videos on Youtube discussing this issue of Jesus saying "Why do you call me good..." It's a very popular muslim objection so there are a ton of videos about it. Here is only one example. I cannot force you to watch it but it's worth watching. https://youtu.be/cJp2jY8FQ0Q

"I chose an analogy that proved my point, you didn't like that analogy so you chose your own and it proved my point" You're going to have to get over this analogy. It didn't work. Either try to create an analogy that works or move along.

"Then you said my mistake was the I wasn't biased enough because I didn't pre-suppose that Jesus is God" I never said this.

"suggesting that your interpretation is biased" I told you both of us are biased. So welcome to the biased club. We are happy to have you as a member.

"I feel like not much more can be said on this topic since you just aren't getting it" The conversation will end whenever you want it to end. Nobody is making you do this. I don't think it's fair to say I'm not "getting it". I get your argument just fine. Rejecting your argument is not the same as "not getting it". I have understood your points and refuted them to the best of my ability. Both of us will be judged for every action, every word, and every intention. God will hold both of us accountable and He will reveal even the most hidden motivations of our hearts. My conscience is clear. I hope yours is too. I would suggest that you would be deeply foolish to appear on that day without an advocate. Turn to Jesus Christ the only Savior and He will be your Mediator on the day of judgement.

"So if you like you can make the final word on this topic (as you love doing" You can absolutely have the final word in this discussion whenever you want it to be over. Just tell me you're done and I will say my final words and I will leave you to say yours. But as long as you are continuing to respond to me with attacks, misrepresentations, and conspiracies, I'm going to reply each time and refute them. Believe it or not I actually enjoy letting the other person have the last word. But only after the debate is fully over with. I won't allow anyone to try to end the conversation by throwing a final attack at me on the way out. I'm not saying you would do this. I'm just speaking from experience.

"I feel like this is the only thing you have going for you so you milk it as much as possible" If by "milk it" you mean I answer every point as thoroughly as I feel it needs to be answered.

"otherwise we can move on to something else?" That's entirely up to you my friend.

Muslim: Quran is preserved as its only got 1 version (114 chapters starting with Fatiha ending with Naas) and this version matches the Birmingham manuscript 100% (save for some missing alifs which is commonly skipped in shorthand) and the Sinai manuscripts.

Thousands memorised it in the Sahaba's time which meant if someone tried to change it over a thousand could object. And millions have it memorised today. Even children memorise it start to end. This is what enables it to be unchanged. There are even libraries full of ancient books containing tafsir (commentary) of Quran which quotes Quran page by page word by word which match today's version. There's an ancient mosque in China that has the Quran carved on its walls that matches the Quran of today word for word.

All in the original language spoken by our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s). In the exact words he spoke them.

Me: I'm disappointed that this is the only thing you said in response to my previous comment but I will assume it means you're done talking about the previous issues. I am curious why you say there's only 1 Quran. What do you say about this video showing at least 31 different versions of the Arabic Quran?

https://youtu.be/9lqQBVtUWvo

Muslim: they started by talking about Harakah. These were introduced to the language later as a way to help non Arabs read the Quran. Even today there are many people who can read Arabic without any Harakah as is evidenced by the fact that a lot of scholarly works in those times were written without Harakah (so you need to learn it to read those works), Are you saying that the works they wrote are unreadable? Why would they write it in that case?

One example they gave was missing dots. How could you know what sound that symbol makes if it's missing a dot? "This" and "thrice"... How can someone ever know what sound "th" makes? Maybe English needs more dots...

Notice the man said He cannot make out what it says without the Harakah. Unfortunately his turban wasn't enough to teach him an ancient dialect apparently but this doesn't surprise me. But that doesn't mean a person of that language could not read it or make out what it's saying. All Arabic writing in the time of the Prophet (s.a.s) had zero Harakah. The fact that you brought this up shows your ignorance since even Muslim children know this fact about the Qur'an.

Then they went on to list 31 different versions of the Qur'an. They attributed the version to different authors/publishers, which doesn't prove they are different. They also didn't mention the number of chapters in these Qurans. I guarantee they are all 114 chapters btw since I have never seen a Qur'an with a different number of chapters.

Then they showed a made up diagram with no references produced by Hatun (LMAO). I honestly can't believe they used the mad woman in speakers corner as a reference LoL. And in that diagram they couldn't even get 1 simple fact right. The most basic and most obvious fact. Remember when I said Uthman (Ra) standardised the Quran? Well he standardized it in his own dialect. The Meccan Quraishi dialect of Hafs. These idiots tried to claim Hafs was a later dialect when actually it was the official language of Mecca, the home of the Prophet (s.a.s) before Prophethood lol.

If these are the sorts of people you get your information from then I'm not surprised you are so far astray from the truth

Me: "Are you saying that the works they wrote are unreadable? Why would they write it in that case?" It casts doubt on the veracity of the muslim claim that there is only one version of the Quran.

"Notice the man said He cannot make out what it says without the Harakah. Unfortunately his turban wasn't enough to teach him an ancient dialect apparently but this doesn't surprise me. But that doesn't mean a person of that language could not read it or make out what it's saying." The man with the turban is from Saudi Arabia and Arabic is his native language. He was a muslim until he came to Christ.

"All Arabic writing in the time of the Prophet (s.a.s) had zero Harakah" That's the point. As you said yourself "How could you know what sound that symbol makes if it's missing a dot?" This is why there are 7 possible readings, which casts doubt on the muslim claim that the Quran is perfect and that it was sent down as a completed work.

"shows your ignorance" Of course I am ignorant of islam. That's why I asked you to explain it to me. I have not claimed to be an expert on islam or the Quran. I have said this a few times.

"They also didn't mention the number of chapters in these Qurans. I guarantee they are all 114 chapters btw since I have never seen a Qur'an with a different number of chapters." Then watch this. https://youtu.be/dBN6k-r-rv0?t=141

"Then they showed a made up diagram" All diagrams are made up aren't they?

"with no references produced by Hatun (LMAO). I honestly can't believe they used the mad woman in speakers corner as a reference LoL. "I'm glad you had a laugh but this isn't an argument against the content, it's an argument against a person.

"These idiots" Is there any Christian who presents evidence against the Quran who you don't think is an idiot?

This man shows the differences between the 2 most popular version of the Quran. Is he an idiot too? https://youtu.be/BwSkDXXpNSI

Another man showing the differences. Is he an idiot? https://youtu.be/pfoSEu3kLZk

Scholar discuss the oldest Quran and how different it is from modern Quran. Man, there are a lot of idiots talking about this topic. https://youtu.be/w_vq9_Wipic

When a muslim scholar also says there are differences is he an idiot too? https://youtu.be/F6agQmo5OTc

"If these are the sorts of people you get your information from then I'm not surprised you are so far astray from the truth". This makes me very curious where you have gotten your false information from. Notice how I am giving you links and you aren't doing that for me?

Since there is considerable evidence proving that there is definitely more than one version of the Quran, how can I trust it? The main point of all of this is to try and make you see that I can also use these things against you. I can appeal to scholars. I can cast doubts on the transmission of the Quran. I'm asking you to use the same standard with the Bible that you use with the Quran. By undermining the Bible, you have left yourself in an unwinnable situation because you have undermined your own religion in the process. You have a requirement to fulfill, as this man explains. https://youtu.be/0gNKn3PqiG4?t=668

Continued in part 2