SoyBooruIP 216.73.216.147 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you. Please email mustard@soyjak.st or post in the /q/ thread.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Image
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
Link to Post
They're too weak and homosexual to be Moorish
You claim to be a Muslim
If you're really a Muslim, you would've known that Sodom and Gomorrah (which predated the Ancient Greek world) practiced flamboyant personry
Anyway,
Also north africans are inbred noon-arab mutts, Arabs own you.
fuck this specialed homosexual thread
No you're related but North Africans are not Arabs both groups had a different ethnogenesis, you are a E haplo rape victim of J1 carrying arabs.
I'm a bit brown myself but nowhere near the guys in this post
You're the one seething kek
now post hand
translation:
@Spanish_Chud: Jesus was a brown-skinned greedy person (ethnicity), the consensus that he was white came from the fact that people from that region came to the US, the United states had to classify them as white to make Jesus white
ur getting doxxed today bro
i know
This is necessary to fulfill Old Testament prophecy
Read Matthew 1
read 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
The only thing you should be comparing between Jesus and Muhammad are their teachings
@Morostein: he was fair skinned but the red hair was henna most likely
Tsmt
The greedy people of the Old testament are NOT the greedy people of now. Jesus says this himself when talking about the synagogue of Satan
Idk why so many Christians pussy out and appeal to this "Christian identity" bullcrap
Just look at greedy people today, do they have anything to do with ancient Israelites? Clearly not since they're mutted and follow a religion that is spiritually empty
When I read the Quran and when Allah describes the greedy people in it, I see the same people as the modern ones, same behavior, same dirtiness, same hypocrisy, same greedy person tactics to own the goyim etc
@Spanish_Chud: it was seen as a sect of judaism.
Like wtf these greedy people are not Polish and it's obvious
debating is greedy personish
greedy people will never be anything else but greedy people, there's no such thing as a 'greedy personish Moroccan, French, German, American or Polish', they are only greedy people
You too should just be quiet
Not everything needs a reaction
You're brown too but don't wanna admit it
Which god would humiliate himself like that?
someones jealous
MY God defeated death
MY God is the most loving and merciful God
I've made peace with the fact that I don't have the vantawhite skin that /pol/clitties want everyone to have
@korg: w concession lmao
@Aztechicano:
If he dies nothing else exists, not even nothingness, not even existence itself
While walking on earth as Jesus, God still sustained the universe at the same time
@Chud: marge
[thumb]151400[/[thumb]
quote me with your low effort slop if you are a chadold
1 God 3 persons
Father, Son, Holy Spirit
All are equally as powerful and share the same substance
-Convert you to Islam, the truth
-Or be the ones who will testify against your deliberate ignorance in the day of judgment after we showed you that Islam was the truth
Which path will you choose chud?
so there is no 1 powerful person? its just 3 equally powerful persons? how would anyone get their way? that's not all powerful
if they are bad why are you using things invented by them?
Most of the time Muslims simply can't comprehend the Trinity and to be fair it is a complicated dogma in itself and can be hard to understand even as a Christian, but Muslims are too used to following their dogma that preaches the strict one-ness of Allah
in 2021, 74.6% of offenders in cases involving production of 'p were white.
production of 'p made up 49.2% of all sexual abuse related arrests.
and you consider yourself white?
Muhammad supposedly received his revelation from Angel Gabriel (AKA Satan disguised as him) and even became suicidal after the revelations
i'm not white and i don't consider myself white
@oscari: would you like it if I used a Quran verse to disprove Christianity?
Just because you can't personally understand it doesn't make it false
Christ said that he's the only way to the Father
Islam doesn't lead you to the Father
Praying to one God is very simple and any human (even the dumbest one) can comprehend that
wow
I can literally use your logic too
if greedy people created islam it wouldn't be so specialed
one of the most basic, yet important prayers in Christianity is the Jesus prayer
"Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner"
how can god have a son, and how can god have a father?
There is no historical evidence that this is the case anyway
The "dominant followers of Jesus" in the way that the Quran describes them never existed
@dap: By that logic, greedy person books came earlier...
Early Christians always believed in the divinity of Jesus and His crucifixion
@Spanish_Chud: nope, the Quran has been kept the same, no translations, no corrupt leaders like saint Paul corrupting it
@Chud: because then it would make him not be all powerful, a god should be all powerful and should only be one, numerous gods mean there is no all powerfulness
Are you inquiring, catechuman, or baptized?
Stfu you specialed asian mutt
On the other hand, Uthman burned a bunch of Qurans and replaced them with his own version
We don't know what those original Qurans said
I'm Eastern Orthodox
The Gospel According to JOHN 14:10-11 NKJV>>
The Gospel According to JOHN 14:10 NKJV
It's painfully obvious if you were to see me that I'm Native American. I'm 6'1, I don't sunburn, my hair grows long and nicely, it's reddish in the sun. I also have the voice. I don't need to claim I'm Cherokee or whatever to know I'm Native American. It's like if you had red hair and blue eyes, it doesn't matter if you don't know what country you're from, you're clearly white.
North Africa is diverse special, there are white North Africans, brown North Africans (the most common) and black North Africans
I never said I'm European, I would never identify with chadoldry
Just wanna know since I'm in the Antiochian.
Still, the Bible was never corrupted, we have early manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament and Codex Vaticanus as well as Codex Sinaiticus for the New Testament
Cope
John 11:25
There are many instances where Jesus says things like this
Plus Early Christians always considered Jesus as God
"Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, If you know?"
Old Testament
The Book of PROVERBS 30:4 NKJV
everyone can participate in the Church
- The Old Testament: The Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BCE - 70 CE) shows that multiple textual traditions were circulating at the same time (Proto-Masoretic, Proto-Septuagint and other Samaritan texts)
- The New Testament: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus disagree with each other in THOUSANDS of places, a lot of passages are missing and they differ from later Byzantine manuscripts
Mark 16:9-20 was absent in earliest manuscripts, John 7:53-8:11 was added later and 1 John 5:7-8 are not original, everything was reconstructed
Did you do Christmas on the 25th or the 7th?
Not trying to argue about this just curious
u should watch i can't sleep
Goodbye
It's ishmael
You claim that a text having textual variation means corruption, but thing is, textual variation is completely normal for pre-printing press transmissions
In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm preservation, not corruption
For example: The Isaiah Scroll is around a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text and comparison between them shows 95% word agreement
Having textual variations means we can compare texts to reconstruct the original
Kind of, but you make it sound more dramatic
Most differences are:
-spelling (e.g., Greek spelling variants)
-word order (Greek is flexible)
-presence/absence of articles ("the")
No Christian doctrine depends on a disputed text
Absent in the earliest manuscripts, mist modern Bibles clearly footnote or bracket it
Doesn't hurt Christian doctrine
Likely a later addition, again most modern Bibles footnote this
This doesn't hurt Christianity, the core message still exists
Later Latin addition, absent from most modern Bibles
Christianity says:
Manuscripts were copied by humans, variants occurred, scholars compare manuscripts to recover originals
Islam claims:
Quran was perfectly preserved and yet: Uthman burning, missing Hadith verse (for example the stoning verse), early companions disagreed on content
Christianity is transparent about its data. Islam suppresses uncomfortable data.
New Testament manuscript evidence:
~5,800 Greek manuscripts
~20,000 in other languages
Earliest fragments within decades, not centuries
Comparison:
Caesar's Gallic Wars: ~10 manuscripts, ~1,000-year gap
Tacitus: ~20 manuscripts
If the NT is "corrupted," then all of ancient history collapses.
Does this hurt Christianity?
No. It strengthens it.
Why?
-We know where variants are
-We know what's original and what's not
No core teaching is in doubt:
-Jesus' divinity
-crucifixion
resurrection
-salvation by grace
Christianity does not claim a magically dictated book. It claims a historically transmitted revelation, and history confirms it.
It's perfectly preserved considering how far back it dates
Sorry to break it to you, but ancient history has an INSANE amount of speculation, historians just try to reconstruct what happened roughly from the sources they have. So saying "if you take these ancient happenings as 100% true then my religion must be 100% true as well!!!" is not as strong as of an argument than you think.
All I'm saying is that it's not "corrupted" like many Muslims claim it to be
Corruption in the Bible means that if it has been altered in its meaning, it has been corrupted. Here 'corruption' is equated with the Bible being changed in the sense of its message or meaning.
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal different texts. Some manuscripts correspond to the Masoretic Text, others to the Septuagint or Samaritan tradition. This shows that at some point different textual traditions coexisted.
Great Isaiah Scroll is a very ancient copy which is largely reliable but not exactly the same as the Masoretic Text. It has meaningful variants as opposed to just spelling differences, a number of these variants affect interpretation. Stability of a text does not imply that it has been flawlessly preserved.
They differ in thousands of places, this is not exaggerated. Bruce Metzger explicitly states this. Most variants are minor, but some involve omissions and additions.
The aim of textual criticism is to determine the original text, not to decide whether faith could survive after a departure of the text, a passage may be unauthentic even if the doctrine that it conveys is unaffected. These two situations are different questions.
The longer ending is missing from the very earliest copies of the New Testament, its vocabulary and style are different from Marks Gospel. Scholars agree it is a later addition btw.
This text is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and moves around the different locations in subsequent copies. It is generally agreed that the text of John did not originally include this passage.
The Trinitarian phrase is missing in all early Greek manuscripts and it first appeared in the Latin tradition. It was very late that the Greek manuscripts got this phrase. The scholars completely reject it.
Whataboutism. Besides that the Quran is the same in meaning and interpretation, the Birmingham manuscript proves it.
Two critical clarifications: 1.Textual change = loss of original meaning. A text can undergo variants while the original meaning remains recoverable. 2.By this definition, any pre-print text with variants is "corrupted", including: Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Josephus, Early Islamic sources (Qur'an readings, hadith). So your definition proves too much. If applied consistently, it collapses ancient literature as a whole. A historian would instead ask:
Is the original text and message substantially recoverable?
For the Bible, the answer is yes.
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal different texts. Some manuscripts correspond to the Masoretic Text, others to the Septuagint or Samaritan tradition. This shows that at some point different textual traditions coexisted.
Everything you said here is 100% correct, but it does not imply corruption. Yes, multiple textual traditions coexisted. Some align with MT, others with LXX or Samaritan. HOWEVER, the differences are visible, classifiable, and traceable. This is not evidence of theological tampering, it's evidence of transparent transmission. If the Bible had been centrally corrupted, we would expect: suppression of earlier forms, forced standardization and disappearance of variants. Instead, we have all of them preserved side-by-side. That is the opposite of corruption.
Yes: Some variants affect interpretation. No: They do
Correct, and Christianity does not claim flawless preservation. This is a strawman.
Vaticanus vs Sinaiticus. They differ in thousands of places, this is not exaggerated. Bruce Metzger explicitly states this. Most variants are minor, but some involve omissions and additions.
Again, factually true, but misleading without context. Bruce Metzger himself explains: The overwhelming majority are: spelling, word order, minor omissions due to eye-skip. Only a tiny fraction affect meaning
The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants. So citing Metzger actually undermines the corruption claim.
"Doctrine unaffected" misses the point?
Textual criticism is about recovering the original, not whether faith survives.
Correct, but this helps Christianity, not hurts it. Because textual criticism has successfully identified: later additions, interpolations, original readings. That's why: Mark 16 is flagged, John 7 is bracketed, 1 John 5:7 is removed. A corrupted text does not self-correct. A critically transmitted text does. If Christianity were trying to preserve false doctrine, why expose and remove verses that seem helpful to it?
Your argument is as follows:
This is a non sequitur. The original premise would have to be:
That premise is false, and contradicted by: classical philology, textual criticism, your own acceptance of reconstructed texts elsewhere.
Not actually whataboutism, this is important. Comparative analysis is not whataboutism when the claim is universal. You are saying that texts with variants are corrupted. So I'm entitled to ask: Do you apply this standard consistently?
Birmingham fragment ~ parts of Surahs 18-20. Does not prove: full Qur'anic stability, original compilation, absence of variants. It also aligns with the Uthmanic consonantal text, not pre-Uthmanic diversity and ignores early reports of missing verses, variant codices, and multiple qira'at. So even Islam relies on standardization, reconstruction and exclusion of variants. The difference is that Christianity preserves the variants openly while Islam canonized one form and eliminated rivals. Let me ask you this:
Textual change =/= loss of original meaning.
https://files.catbox.moe/42khch.txt
Let's define corruption first. The corruption of a text means the alteration of its original form in terms of meaning, not form. Because languages obviously evolve, words disappear and others are added, so I am not taking into account changes to the Bible in terms of form, as that would be dishonest and foolish because the Arabic language has also changed over the last 1,400 years. And yes, this also applies to Homer, Aristotle, Josephus, etc. When it comes to their writings, we literally talk about corruption, interpolation, and reconstruction, historians all agree on this. But all these major figures of ancient literature do not claim to be transmitting a text from God to humanity.
Plurality and transparency are findings of modern research, not ancient guarantees. The existence of several traditions proves that there was no single controlled text, as is the case with the Quran, for example. There are also forms that have disappeared, such as the proto-LXX texts in Hebrew and the pre-Samaritan forms. The survival of certain variants does not mean that the Bible has been preserved in its entirety.
This is completely false historically. There is evidence of doctrinally motivated changes, such as Luke 22:43-44, John 1:18 variants, and Comma Johanneum. In the book A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, he clearly discusses the theological motivations behind certain variants. The changes were not innocent.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/exeg/exegrex/text-ntcomm.pdf
You are still diverting the subject from textual authenticity to doctrine survival. Isaiah contains variants that affect the interpretation of the text, this is undeniable and theologians all agree on this. We are not talking about a change in form but in substance. The fact that greedy people and Christians later embraced and harmonized it doesn't change the fact that it has been corrupted.
I don't disagree with you that most variants are minor, but some are not (entire endings, omissions, interpolations). Metzger's testimony about doctrine is theological, not textual. In the book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edition) by Metzger and Ehrman, they talk about deliberate corruption of the texts.
Here's the link if you wanna read it: https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf
Yeah obviously, scholars do. But the corrections were made centuries later, after the additions had already been widely circulated as Scripture. Mark 16 and John 7 were read, preached, and canonized before being questioned. Late corruption of certain elements doesn't mean that there is no corruption.
My argument is not 'there are variations, therefore it is irrecoverable'
My argument is: The text was modified > then reconstructed > therefore it is not perfectly preserved.Recoverability doesn't negate alteration.
The Quran is perfectly preserved, and I am not speaking from a Muslim perspective, but academics all agree that it has been preserved like no other book. The only changes you can find in the ancient manuscripts are purely textual (spelling, grammar, oral recitation style), NOT A SINGLE doctrine has been altered. The Quran was compiled by Caliph Uthman into a single book with the direct permission of the Prophet's companions, who analyzed everything before giving their approval. The verses missing from the Quran are extremely minor, and they were not added because they were abrogated and were not required in the final text. The Prophet's companions are like the apostles of Jesus, so they were in the best position to know what to put in the Quran. Here are all the manuscripts that prove that today's Quran is the same as it was 1,400 years ago:
- Sana'a Manuscripts (Yemen)
- Topkapi Manuscript (Istanbul, Turkey)
- Samarkand Manuscript (Tashkent)
- Birmingham Qur'an Manuscript (UK)
All these early manuscripts of the Quran prove that it has been remarkably preserved, with only changes in form caused by the evolution of the Arabic language, but without any loss of substance or doctrinal change.
Btw the hadiths have nothing to do with the Quran, they are just prophetic traditions and not the words of God like the Quran. They are only there to guide Muslims in their way of life by following the actions of the Prophet, but these hadiths are not sacred, whereas the Quran is. The divergence between Sunferretnd Shias stems mainly from these prophetic traditions, because the two movements are in complete agreement on the perfection of the Quran.
How is it possible to name something that has been lost? It is technically impossible unless I was with Jesus and saw the loss with my own eyes. Textual criticism doesn't require proving lost doctrine, it establishes whether the transmitted text matches the earliest form or not. A text can be corrupted even if theology survives reconstruction, and it applies to all ancient literature btw.
You redefine corruption as any alteration from the earliest form, even if the original meaning is fully recoverable. By your own admission this applies to all ancient literature, including Homer, Aristotle, and Josephus. That definition makes corruption universal and therefore historically meaningless. Historians do not work with "perfect preservation" but with recoverability, and by that standard the Bible succeeds.
2. Dead Sea Scrolls and control
Multiple textual traditions do not imply loss of the original message. They allow us to identify, compare, and reconstruct earlier forms. The disappearance of some forms does not equal corruption of meaning, only normal transmission. Centralized control, like the Uthmanic standardization, proves authority, not superior preservation.
3. Alleged theological tampering
Yes, some variants were doctrinally motivated, and scholars openly identify them. That is precisely the point. They are detectable, isolated, and corrected. None resulted in a lost or altered core Christian belief. Removing Luke 22, John 1 variants, or the Comma Johanneum does not change Christology or doctrine.
4. Isaiah and substance
Isaiah has interpretive variants, not competing messages. No messianic theme, monotheism, covenant concept, or historical claim is lost or reversed. Later acceptance did not create the text, it recognized its stability. Interpretive range is not corruption of substance.
5. Manuscripts and reconstruction
That scholars reconstruct texts does not prove corruption of meaning. It proves transparency. Mark 16 and John 7 were questioned precisely because earlier evidence survived. A text whose variants can be mapped and corrected has not lost its message.
6. Quran comparison
There is no academic consensus that the Quran is perfectly preserved. Uthmanic compilation involved eliminating competing codices, which prevents textual comparison. The manuscripts cited reflect an already standardized text and cannot demonstrate earlier uniformity. The Sana'a palimpsest itself shows non identical readings.
7. Hadith and meaning
Separating Quran from hadith is theological, not historical. The Quran's reading, interpretation, and application depend on oral tradition, which explains divergent readings and legal schools despite a shared consonantal text.
8. Lost belief question
If no lost belief can be identified, then corruption of meaning has not been demonstrated. An unfalsifiable claim is not a historical conclusion. Recoverability does not negate alteration, but it does negate loss of message. By historical standards, the Bible's message remains intact.
Sidenote:
Metzger's use of terms like "corruption" refers to identifiable scribal alteration in the technical sense of textual criticism, not to the loss or distortion of Christianity's core message, which he explicitly affirms remains recoverable.