Comments by "MU MU" (@mumu9690) on "Daily Express" channel.

  1. 6
  2. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”??? Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    5
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fit3 in the way of God those who Fit3 you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fit3in in] the sacred month is for [4gro kmiitted in] the sacred month, and for [all] violin,4ations is legal retribution. So whoever has 5aulted you, then salt him in the same way that he has salted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fit3 those only who fit3 them, fit1ng in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they dee.septively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fit3 to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘purse.cution’, ‘k.ruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘purse.kution’
    2
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? 😒😏🙄 Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered,,
    1
  41. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fit3 in the way of God those who Fit3 you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fit3in in] the sacred month is for [4gro kmiitted in] the sacred month, and for [all] violin,4ations is legal retribution. So whoever has 5aulted you, then salt him in the same way that he has salted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fit3 those only who fit3 them, fit1ng in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they dee.septively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fit3 to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘purse.cution’, ‘k.ruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘purse.kution’
    1
  42. Critics as usual apply ‘cut and choose’ approach with regards to this passage (Quran 2:191). They only quote, “And ciw them wherever you find them…(2:191). However, when we read the passage in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite what they portray of the verse. Quran 2:190 – 195 2:190 Fit3 in the way of God those who Fit3 you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors. 2:191 And ciw them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than kiwing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kiw them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 2:194 [Fit3in in] the sacred month is for [4gro kmiitted in] the sacred month, and for [all] violin,4ations is legal retribution. So whoever has 5aulted you, then salt him in the same way that he has salted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him. 2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good. It’s important whenever one reads a Quranic verse, to read it in its context. As you have read, critics only quote the part which suites them, they isolate previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the kiwing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read, Allah makes it evident to fit3 those only who fit3 them, fit1ng in self-defence. Another thing some love to do with the verse is, change the Arabic word’s meaning. Example, the Arabic word ‘Fitna’ used in 2:191 and 2:193, they dee.septively have translated the word as ‘disbelief’. So, when it’s read in that perspective, the passage is implying to fit3 to those who are disbelievers, just because of their religion. This again when we examine it, it will turn out to be a lie. The Arabic word ‘Fitnah’ means ‘purse.cution’, ‘k.ruption’, ‘sedition’. But when the word ‘Fitnah’ is used in verse 2:191 and 2:193 it means ‘purse.kution’
    1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1