ArchivedMATTHEW 1:23, ISAIAH 7:11, a prophecy fulfilled?The point I want to stress is this: There are different interpretations of the Immanuel prophecy. But no matter which you use, the worst thing to say is the verse in Matthew is wrong and corrupted. This is something which might be debated until the end of time. But there is no way you can prove the Bible is corrupted. The same means you use to show the Bible is corrupted, I can do that with the Qu'ran--by taking debated passages and ripping apart the Qu'ran to support my claim. The only time I will do this is for defensive purposes (if a Muslim first takes the Bible out of context). We can argue back and forth on deep topics, but no Muslim has yet to answer the fundamental question, does a revelation of God come secondary and contrary to a previous revelation? Obviously no. Why would someone beat God to the punch by first spreading something which is false? God first reveals the truth, then man corrupts it. And you cannot say the Bible was corrupted because you have to realize that Muhammed himself (according to the Qu'ran) realized that Christianity and the claims of Christ being the only begotten Son of God was already established before his supposed revelation. Muhammed himself proves the authenticity of Christian teaching--that it is the same today as it was during his time and before. Also, let's not forget the thousands of mauscripts for the Holy Bible which agree with each other 99%. The Holy Bible has more manuscript evidence than any book in HISTORY and it's more accurate than any book (with mauscript evidence) in HISTORY. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame