@muske,

I have offered severally why anyone who investigates the deity of Jesus Christ cannot miss the solid evidences of its affirmation from the Bible itself - both OT and NT. In soundbites, let me point out a few issues why these unscholarly fellows banter to ideas they can't defend:

muske:

thank God u believe in the Quran.

Not one time did I remotely insinuate that idea; and my posts severally testify my denunciation of Muhammad's tales.

muske:

can you please refer to your bible and post it here where it was said that HOLY SPIRIT WILL OVERSHADOW THEE , AND YOU WILL CONCEIVE A CHILD OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Luke 1:35 - "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Matt. 1:18 - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

muske:

U r disturbed or confused. Uve been explained to in one of the threads but u still come here and feigned ignorance.

If I feign ignorance, it means I'm pretending to be ignorant - which is hardly the case. Use constructs that euphemise your R-IQ if nothing else suits you.

muske:

now to the issue of trinity, take your time to read and i pray Allah open your heart to the truth.

Lets look at thisDictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and engrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."

This is the classic slogan of liberal theologians who have no scholarship in the inspired Word of God, and it is not new. Several other claims have been made to sully the established testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Jesus Christ, and to date the so-called scholars have not been able to defend their claims in light of historical antecedents. Take, for example, such texts as John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6 and Psalm 2:12, among several others. What have these scholars said about the one called "the Mighty God" in prophetic language pointing to none other than the Messiah?

Quoting isolated texts here and there is suspect of duplicity; and from all indications that is what you have done.

muske:

The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, but in pagan religions trinitarian beliefs date back to ancient Babylon, thousands of years before Jesus Christ. The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity.

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Was this verse written about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ??

This is why I earlier stated that liberal theologians will lie and sell you more lies in an attempt to deny historical antecedents even where there are evidences that deflate their duplicity.

belloti:

Welldone sister.

well done piece of islamic male property would have been the ideal response from you!

In case the thick muske missed it.

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

babyosisi:

In case the thick muske missed it.

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

No, she would come back with some unsubstantiated tales sold her by her "researchers" who haven't read the Bible at all. Anyone can just close their eyes, dream some tales and publish some critical softsell paperback to expose their R-IQ. For effect again, let's review muske's quote again:

muske:

The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

Did she ever check the Bible to verify that claim at all? Okay, here again for you, muske:

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

That was written, not 300 years after the death of Jesus as your "scholars" claimed; but in the very same century in which Jesus lived and ministered. So, where did they ever get the idea that the Bible did not give us a doctrine of a Trinity??

muske:

The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity

Here again are 1st century Biblical texts that deflate your scholars' cheap interjections, muske:

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 5:21 - "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

John 5:23 - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

John 17:5 - "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Notice that all these are from just one of the apostles who followed Jesus in the first century; not to mention what the other apostles wrote about Him. Do yourself a fav when you quote texts next time: make sure they don't expose you to ridicule and duplicity.

let's wait an see.

Mo has sumtin to sayyyyyyy
Mo has sumtin to sayyyyyyy
listen,listen pay attention for Mo has sumtin to sayyyyyyy

@shahan,

u amused me with your denial on all the sayings posted therein. so all the people are liars. KAI Chineke

trinity, oh just like "Tri-murti" (Three-forms) consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva or that of The Brahmas having, Vajrapani, Manjusri, and Avalokitesvara or that of the Egyptians with the symbol of a wing, a globe, and a serpent.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

the above has been explained but you are just a "pretender"

John 5:21 - "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

John 5:23 - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one."

John 17:5 - "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

now shahan, lets take it one after the other. why did you post the above quotes. did you post them to buttress TRINITY as a result of the father and son being used therein?

@muske,

You should realise that your references are liberal quotes trying to deny Biblical texts. As shahan has eruditely shown, the claim of your scholars that "The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity," has been debunked. If you assume someone is lying to you, then it is not real Christians who know their Bibles but the very "scholars" who sell you the misguided quotes you post without verifying their claims from the Bible itself.

This pretentious exercise of ferreting Biblical denials from so-called "scholars" works both ways, and I'm sure that anyone can use it effectively against Islam. For example, I could as well quote tons of Wahhabi creed to "prove" how Islam works against itself - and anyone could buy the ideas put forth if they don't check out the facts first from the Qur'an itself.

I think you should first verify your claims from the Bible itself before you run away with so-called quotes that attempt to deny something taught in the Bible when it is there with solid proof. The case of I John 5:7 is just one such example that conclusively shows your quotes to be false. The Bible indeed gives us the doctrine of the Trinity long before these liberal "scholars" came along in their attempt to deny the obvious.

Looking at the "Tri-murti" again shows that it has no foundation, and the claim is as empty as what has been shown above. Notice that the 'scholars' who claim that "modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ," are the very same ones trying to claim that the Trinity concepts predated Christianity! These guys really don't have a leg to stand on, and by pushing their idea, you're defeating your own arguments by pandering to such false claims.

If you really want the truth, then there's just one question to ask: "muske, have you actually read the Bible for yourself to verify the claims that you're quoting?" I hope you first take the challenge to read the Bible with an open heart and mind, and then you'll see how weak are your claims.

Blessings.

remember also that Mohammed the 419er would not have blatantly denied the concept of trinity if there was no such thing even though his own trinity included mary the mother of Jesus (that's another topic)

The funniest quotes in christianity is the first part of the Angelus, " Hail Mary Mother of God, How can anyone say that? Mother Of God, not Mother of Jesus.

@belloti,

belloti:

The funniest quotes in christianity is the first part of the Angelus, " Hail Mary Mother of God, How can anyone say that? Mother Of God, not Mother of Jesus.

Can we rephrase that line of yours as: "The funniest quotes in Roman Catholicism is the first part of the Angelus. . ." Many times when discussing or debating issues, it helps to have a good grasp of the subject before posting an entry. Catholicism has its own traditions and should be respected as such; but they do not represent Evangelical or Protestant Christianity, as these do not consider Mary to be the mother of God. The Bible doesn't call her that at all, and the closest appellation of honour to that found in the Bible is "the mother of my Lord" which Elizabeth used in addressing Mary (Luke 1:43).

So, your idea is not to be taken as representative of "Christianity", as the saying goes for Muslims: "one muslim doesn't fit all"; or there should not have been Shiites and Sunnis at each others' throats, while the Wahhabis are trying to finish them all!

@belloti,
           Don't mind, in 20yrs time Marry will be the 4th God, the next plan of Roman Catholic Church.

Only 20 years, in contrast to more than 20 centuries that Mary hasn't become the 4th God?

How about this for size - Allah and his three daughter goddesses that plague Islam's polytheism from the very start when the Qur'an was "revealed"??

belloti:

The funniest quotes in christianity is the first part of the Angelus, " Hail Mary Mother of God, How can anyone say that? Mother Of God, not Mother of Jesus.

In the attempt to dig at the bible, you goofed by equating the quotes of a sect (the roman catholic church) with "christianity". Both are not synonymous and such a quote as you posted earlier stand completely at variance with the very teachings of the bible!

I always try to avoid discussing internal christian divisions, thats not my area. My opinion is that Catholic are christians and their beliefs and practices are in line with the faith they profess. Anyway am glad some christians also see that part as aberration. It really is.

@belloti,

I think bari_kade actually helped to put things in perspective. Any Christian sect does not define the whole of Biblical Christianity in just the same way that no single sect or denomination among the more than 70 sects in Islam could alone be representing Islam as stipulated in the Qur'an.

What people have been doing so far on the Forum is quote from relevant sources in order to examine the claims of Christianity and Islam. Such resources include especially the Bible (for Christianity), and the Qur'an and Hadith for Islam. Up until now, there are still gapping holes and huge issues to tackle in Islam than there are in Christianity.

Regardless of the denominations, all Muslims adhere to the Qur'an, and most accent to the Hadith. Yet, in the concensus of Muslims as regards the Qur'an, it does not appear that the grey areas have been successfully treated in Islam.

We hope that these issues can be kept in good perspectives as the discussion progresses.

Cheers.

thanks shahan for clearing that up before belotti comes up with christians marrying multiple wives e.g old time mormons.
What did the Bible teach about that?

I know shittes cut themselves with knives in a ceremony,is it koranically correct to do so?

@babyosisi

That is the sign of baal worship, you see my sister that anything we do to the body has a meaning.

Another form of baal worship is where a cow is image made and the belly is made like an altar and a baby is thrown into a fire and the priests have sex there and then.

The same Muslim Shiite are waiting for An Ahmadi and this man will rule for 7years. This is the Antichrist. The Muslim are trained in Escatology and we Christian are only bothered about Money Money Money. They know The end is Nigh and they Know the Enemy.

The muslims have not seen anything( Evil that will be done to man) yet but they shall see but because satan had blinded them they will over look it. I am Still looking for the Abomination that maketh Desolate.

We have to Hold fast to the Faith that we have.

The Muslim people are being converted by God himself. But God needs us to love them and never Hate them They are baal worshipers in jewish Clothing.

babyosisis and friends,

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The above was a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc doesnt have the above.

my questions are, since we have the above verse in only King James Version.

1. Why are we not having the verse in other versions except in only King James Version

2.Which is the most reliable version?

3. If KJV is the most accepted based on the above verse, what happen to the other versions.

4. Is KJV 100% complete?

5. Are other versions 100% complete?

muske:

babyosisis and friends,

I John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The above was a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc doesnt have the above.

my questions are, since we have the above verse in only King James Version.

1. Why are we not having the verse in other versions except in only King James Version

2.Which is the most reliable version?

3. If KJV is the most accepted based on the above verse, what happen to the other versions.

4. Is KJV 100% complete?

5. Are other versions 100% complete?

Your answers are thus:
1. There are other versions of the verse. What exactly is your point miss?

2. I prefer the King James Version, most especially the New King James Version

3. The other versions are meant to add to ones understanding of the verse in contention.

4. Yes it is

5. There are a lot of adulterated bible versions out there, but if you want the authentic one, I would suggest a New King James Version precisely. So not all the versions are 100% complete.

My Question is this:
In another topic, a muslim sister said there are fake Qu'ran out there as well as hadith, tell me is that so, and where do we get the authentic qu'ran, even also from the internet?
Waiting for your adequate response.

mrpataki:

5. There are a lot of adulterated bible versions out there, but if you want the authentic one, I would suggest a New King James Version precisely. So not all the versions are 100% complete.

@mrpataki,
while I support and understand you, I wish to add that there is absolutely no adulterated bible version; only "adulterated" readers.
If you check out 1 John 5:7 (preferably check verses 6 - 12) in all the versions 'muskeke' listed above, you will see that they are all saying the same thing expressed in the King James version; but using more insightful understanding of the revelation of God in translation/transcribing process. Greek manuscripts are unanimous in stating that Verse 7 ends with "record." The longer versions of verses 7-9 made their way into the traditional printed Greek Testament (TR) and thus into the King James version due to the influence of the Latin Bible and four late Greek manuscripts. The point of John's original version was that the witnesses described in 1 John verse 6 comprise one unified testimony of the veracity of the Gospel. It is this insight which in turn paves the way for verses 7-9.
So you can see, it is easy for any "adulterated" reader like muske to arrive at the erronous conclusion of "later insertion by the church" because of poor wisdom and understanding of the scriptures and the history of Bible translations. But for all it's worth, let's keep on encouraging more of such 'discoveries' from the Holy Bible, the more thay read the more the chances of the light coming. Bless!

@ Havila,
Point taken, no need for me to start exerting my points/emphasis.
But really, I have seen adulterated bibles here in Nigeria by malicious set of people, where they tried to portray loads of heresies from the real bible.

Thanks once again.

mrpataki:

But really, I have seen adulterated bibles here in Nigeria by malicious set of people, where they tried to portray loads of heresies from the real bible.Thanks once again.

Yes, that's why I said I understand what you mean; but I am trying to focus on the context of 'muskeke's' query.
As for those peoples peddling the 'heresies from the bible' God has alread declared his judgement for them in Revelations 22:18-19;
"For I testify unto everyman that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and from the things which are written in this book."

There shall always be adulterated bibles as long as no one is saying the truth. But its good you are beginning to accept that fact.

@ Dr. Havila,
Point well noted. Let me reiterate as well with this scripture from proverbs

Proverbs 30:6  -Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Thanks once again.

@mrpataki,

Since you claimed KJV  is 100% complete, i want you to check this verse for me there and if not there, pls explain the below verse
Roman 7v15; I do not understand my own action.

My Question is this:
In another topic, a muslim sister said there are fake Qu'ran out there as well as hadith, tell me is that so, and where do we get the authentic qu'ran, even also from the internet?
Waiting for your adequate response.

"waiting"
Maybe you misunderstood her. There is nothing like fake koran but we have countless number of fake Hadiths where you christians lift your allegations from but koran is one regardless of the author.

Hope I have answered you.

Lets see where you question will come from this time.

stay cool

@Havila,,

This questions are for you.

1. Is the bible from Mathew to Revelation 100% Inspired?

2. Do we take all the words and chapters therein from mathew to Revelation as the Inspired Gospel sent to Jesus.

@Havila,,

These questions are for you.

1. Is the bible from Mathew to Revelation 100% Inspired?

2. Do we take all the words and chapters therein from mathew to Revelation as the Inspired Gospel sent to Jesus.

3. In addition, Is Genesis to Malachi and to the last book of the Old Testament the Inspired Injeel sent to Moses?

muske:

@mrpataki,

Since you claimed KJV  is 100% complete, i want you to check this verse for me there and if not there, please explain the below verse
Roman 7v15; I do not understand my own action.

Romans 7: 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Dear Madam Muskeke, once again like Dr. Havilla rightly said this is simply a case NOT of biblical error but poor understanding and a lack of wisdom while reading the bible via the blind lenses of islamic dogma.
I remember this chapter well as one of those my dad liked to talk on.
You cannot attempt to understand this verse simply by reading it in isolation, pls read the preceeding and proceeding verses to get a proper understanding.

Here was Apostle Paul talking to the Roman believers:
Verse 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Please note the areas i highlighted. Here Paul was speaking to the Romans about what used to obtain in the days before Christ came to shed his blood for the remission of sins. Under the old testament/covenant, the Jews were under the regime of the law - 10 commandments. Unfortunately the law in itself had NO power to protect anyone from sin. The law only did one thing - convict people of their sins i.e those who disobeyed the law.

He explains further:
verse 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

In other words, without the law there was no sin and since there was no sin he was not under the commandment that declares that "the soul that sinneth shall die". But as soon as the law was introduced, sin came into the picture! For instance, if there were no laws in Nigeria that prohibited us from killing, you cannot accuse anyone of being a murderer since there is no such law! But as soon as the law came into place, anyone that kills can now be charged with murder and jailed.

Further more:
Verse 12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
  13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
  14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Was the law then a bad thing simply because it convicted us of sins? NO! Just like the laws of the average society helps us live in an orderly and organised society, God introduced the laws under the old covenant as a guide for his people on how to conduct and live their lives! So in other words the law was good, but since it had NO power to prevent you and i from sinning, we were constantly under the pressure of struggling against our carnal desires.
A simple analogy, the law says though shalt not steal, but does that law have the power to actually prevent you from stealing? yet again No. The normal unregenerated human is covetous by nature and our natural instincts is to take what does not belong to us as long as we want it. Does that make the law "thou shalt not steal" a bad one?

Further:
Verse 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
  16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
  17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
  18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Here Paul is lamenting the fallen nature of the unregenerated man. We know that it is against the law of society for a man to cheat on his wife, yet millions of men do! What is the excuse? That they could not help it! While thousands of men would not want to cheat on their wives, yet they do because that is the primal nature of the unsaved man. He is prone to cheating, even the law could not save him.
We live in a body that craves instant gratification, a body that does not recognise the law! That is the flesh that Paul is talking about and the "sin that dwelleth in me" refers to our unsaved nature that is naturally prone to run foul of the law!
If indeed our primal nature was perfect then we would have no need of the law!

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

  24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

  25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Note verses 23 and 24 is the summary of Paul's lamentation of the default sinful nature of man. But in verse 25 we are given an assurance, Christ Himself saw that the law could not save us, so he came and died on the cross so that He might not only deliver us from the captivity of sin but that he might give us His Holy Spirit so that for the first time, the default configuration of our spirits could be changed forever from that of the fallen sinful man to that of a regenerated soul. With Christ in us, the laws of God did not require a long list of dos and donts anymore, now we are directly led by His spirit that has also given us the POWER to overcome sin!

Please read John 1 and I John 3.

muske:

@Havila,,

These questions are for you.

1. Is the bible from Mathew to Revelation 100% Inspired?

2. Do we take all the words and chapters therein from mathew to Revelation as the Inspired Gospel sent to Jesus.

3. In addition, Is Genesis to Malachi and to the last book of the Old Testament the Inspired Injeel sent to Moses?

Yet again you are guilty of islamically interpreting the bible.
The idea of "an injeel sent to" whoever is NOT a biblical concept but that of islam!

1. 100% inspired!

2. The bible is an inspired collection of works by men raised by God to serve as a guide for us today. You cannot study Chemistry without a textbook so is it impossible to be in a relationship with someone without having a set of guidelines, encouragement, inspiration and examples to follow. That is what the bible is! Jesus came to die for our sins on the cross, He was not specifically sent down with any injeel, that is the lie of islam!

3. Genesis to Deuteronomy is presumed to have been authored by Moses. Beyond that Moses could not have authored any other books that describes events that occured centuries after he must have died!
Once again, the books of the old testament are books that God inspired his servants and prophets to write to serve as a guide to those of us that were to come. If you notice or bothered to read this same bible you keep picking on rather than ferreting for percieved inconsistencies you will realise that the books of Moses were being read by the Jews as a nation to remind them of God's covenant to them, His exploits at bringing their ancestors to their present land and his commandments to them as to how to live their lives!

@brother davidylan,

thanks for the response.

1. 100% inspired!

2. The bible is an inspired collection of works by men raised by God to serve as a guide for us today. You cannot study Chemistry without a textbook so is it impossible to be in a relationship with someone without having a set of guidelines, encouragement, inspiration and examples to follow. That is what the bible is! Jesus came to die for our sins on the cross, He was not specifically sent down with any injeel, that is the lie of islam!

That is what the bible is! Jesus came to die for our sins on the cross, He was not specifically sent down with any injeel, that is the lie of islam![/b]
are you saying he want given any message/law like moses?

WHAT
having concluded that the bible is 100% inspired,

A.
1. Do we refer to the below as inspired words of God
2. the New Testament is believed to be the law given to Jesus huh
2. If the answer to the above is in affirmative, then,do the sayings of paul, mathew, luke etc part of the "inspired message" sent to jesus?

B. Do you consider the below as inspired words of God?
1.
2nd Timothy 4v9: , 'do your diligence to come shortly unto. The CLOAK that I left at Troas with Carpus, WHEN YOU COME, BRING WITH YOU, AND THE BOOKS, BUT ESPECIALLY THE PARCHMENTS.

2.
Judge 9v8: the trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them, and they said unto the olive tree, reign you over us.

but the olive tree said unto them, should i leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man and go to be promoted over the trees?

and the trees said to the fig tree, come you, and reign over us. but the fig tree said unto them, should i forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

then said the treees unot the vine; come you and reign over us. and the vine said unto them, should i leave my wine which cheers God and a man, and go to be promoted over the trees.

then said all the trees unto the brambles, come you and reign over us. and the bramble said unto the trees, if in truth you anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow, and if not, let fire come out out the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

more still coming after you have answered the above

3. Genesis to Deuteronomy is presumed to have been authored by Moses. Beyond that Moses could not have authored any other books that describes events that occured centuries after he must have died!

very good, if moses could not have authored books that occured centuries after he must have died, how come the below verse

Deutronomy 34v5.-10: , So Moses, DIED, and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses), He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED, and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses,

note the tense used. "and buried him" and "not will be buried"

Once again, the books of the old testament are books that God inspired his servants and prophets to write to serve as a guide to those of us that were to come. If you notice or bothered to read this same bible you keep picking on rather than ferreting for percieved inconsistencies you will realise that the books of Moses were being read by the Jews as a nation to remind them of God's covenant to them, His exploits at bringing their ancestors to their present land and his commandments to them as to how to live their lives!

Now to the below, do we say Joshua wrote this book?

Joshua 24:29-33: , "And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel

also note the tense used

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls.htm

archaeology cannot lie

@ muske,you asked these same questions earlier and shahan answered you.
do you have memory loss?