Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

**Al-manar** · 05-03-2010

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...

Item :1

Adam

A- Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures !

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
He taught Adam all the names of everything. ( Quran 2:31).

B- according to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed

Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

c - The seductive argument of Satan in the Quranic narrative is that God prohibited the tree for not giving the chance to Adam and Eve to be in higher ranks as angels or eteranal beings ....,while the bible would view Satan as mere repeating the words of God seeing the the prohibition if they eat it their eyes will be opened, and they will be like God, knowing good and evil."

D- Man is better than the Angels?

Though the fact that Angels bowed to Adam in respect ,and God taught him the names that the Angels were ignorant of ,it seems Adam felt himself inferior to the angels ,and been seduced by Satan who would argue that the tree would make Adam and his wife Angels etc....

The bible too ... Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

TILL NEXT ITEM ..........

PEACE

**Hiroshi** · 01-23-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:29-34)

In the Bible “stars” can represent or symbolize a number of different things. Often the meaning is that of a king or a prominent individual. And a star or stars “falling from heaven” pictures the downfall of such ones. In addition, the removal of starlight from the heavens along with light from the moon and sun is a frequent symbol used in prophetic warnings of disaster brought as a result of God’s judgment.

Isaiah 14:12-13 NIV says of the king of Babylon: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God””. (The “stars of God” here refer to the line of kings of Judah descended from David as shown in Numbers 24:17).

A similar picture occurs in Daniel 8:9-10 NIV: “Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.”

Regarding the “generation” mentioned in Matthew 24:34 the 1 May 1999 Watchtower magazine published by JWs said this on page 11:

12 In the years leading up to 66 C.E., Christians would have seen many of the preliminary elements of the composite sign being fulfilled—wars, famines, even an extensive preaching of the good news of the Kingdom. (Acts 11:28; Colossians 1:23) When, though, would the end come? What did Jesus mean when he said: ‘This generation [Greek, ge·ne·a′] will not pass away’? Jesus had often called the contemporaneous mass of opposing Jews, including religious leaders, ‘a wicked, adulterous generation.’ (Matthew 11:16; 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36) So when, on the Mount of Olives, he again spoke of “this generation,” he evidently did not mean the entire race of Jews throughout history; nor did he mean his followers, even though they were “a chosen race.” (1 Peter 2:9) Neither was Jesus saying that “this generation” is a period of time.
13 Rather, Jesus had in mind the opposing Jews back then who would experience the fulfillment of the sign he gave. Regarding the reference to “this generation” at Luke 21:32, Professor Joel B. Green notes: “In the Third Gospel, ‘this generation’ (and related phrases) has regularly signified a category of people who are resistant to the purpose of God. . . . [It refers] to people who stubbornly turn their backs on the divine purpose.”
14 The wicked generation of Jewish opposers who could observe the sign being fulfilled would also experience the end. (Matthew 24:6, 13, 14) And that they did! In 70 C.E., the Roman army returned, led by Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian. The suffering of the Jews who were again bottled up in the city is almost beyond belief. Eyewitness Flavius Josephus reports that by the time the Romans demolished the city, about 1,100,000 Jews had died and some 100,000 were taken captive, most of those soon to perish horribly from starvation or in Roman theaters. Truly, the tribulation of 66-70 C.E. was the greatest that Jerusalem and the Jewish system had ever experienced or would ever experience. How different the outcome was for Christians who had heeded Jesus’ prophetic warning and had left Jerusalem after the departure of the Roman armies in 66 C.E.! The anointed Christian “chosen ones” were “saved,” or kept safe, in 70 C.E.—Matthew 24:16, 22.

“Insight on the Scriptures”, Volume 1 published by JWs says this on page 1033:
Figurative Use. Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph’s dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his 11 brothers by 11 stars. (Ge 37:9, 10) Job 38:7 parallels “the morning stars” that joyfully cried out at earth’s founding with the angelic “sons of God.” The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as “the bright morning star” and promised to give “the morning star” to his conquering followers, evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Re 22:16; 2:26, 28; compare 2Ti 2:12; Re 20:6.) The seven “angels” of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Re 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1) “The angel of the abyss” called Abaddon is also represented by a star.—Re 9:1, 11; see ABADDON.
In the proverbial saying of Isaiah chapter 14, the boastful and ambitious king of Babylon (that is, the Babylonian dynasty of kings represented by Nebuchadnezzar), called the “shining one” (Heb., heh·lel′; “Lucifer,” KJ), is presented as seeking to lift up his throne “above the stars of God.” (Isa 14:4, 12, 13; see SHINING ONE.) The metaphor of a “star” is used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah (Nu 24:17), and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by conquest of Jerusalem. A similar prophecy in Daniel chapter 8 describes the small “horn” of some future power as trampling down certain stars of “the army of the heavens” and moving against the Prince of the army and his sanctuary (Da 8:9-13); while at Daniel chapter 12, by simile, those persons “having insight” and bringing others to righteousness are pictured as shining “like the stars” in “the time of the end.” (Da 12:3, 9, 10) By contrast, immoral deviators from truth are compared to “stars with no set course.”—Jude 13.
The darkening of the stars, along with the sun and moon, is a frequent figure used in prophetic warnings of disaster brought as a result of God’s judgment. (Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7; Re 6:12, 13; 8:12; compare Job 9:6, 7.) The dimming of such luminaries is also used in the description of the fading years of the aged person at Ecclesiastes 12:1, 2. Elsewhere stars are spoken of as falling or being cast down to earth. (Mt 24:29; Re 8:10; 9:1; 12:4) “Signs” in sun, moon, and stars are foretold as evidence of the time of the end.—Lu 21:25.

**Hiroshi** · 01-23-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

I think those should definitely count! You want another example? Try the variances in Matthew 5:22.

English Standard Version reads: "everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable to judgment", and a footnote says: "a. Some manuscripts insert without cause".

Is this the variance that you refer to?

**Hiroshi** · 01-23-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

Hirosi,
The revelation reference your referring to 3:14. I don't see the problem? Is it where it's says the source of God's creation? I don't have an issue with the passage. It's a mystery and as such unexplainable.

Were you baptised in the name of the Father only? I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

May I ask you a personal question? As a Unitarian how were you baptized? If it calls for a trinitarian baptism from the very beginning Then that should impy a trinitarian belief. After all, if Jesus were just a prophet then adding him into the baptism would be extrememly narcissistic not to mention blasmephemous.

I am a Jehovah's Witness, McBroom. We do not believe in the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 does not mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spiriy all have the same name. In modern English we can say: "in the name of the law" meaning "by the authority of the law". But the law doesn't literally have a name. In the Greek of the NT a similar idiom existed. Matthew 10:41 KJV says: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."

When Matthew 28:19 instucts to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" it means that the baptism must be done in recognition of the authority of God the Father, of his Son Jesus and of God's spirit.

To render "αρχη" as "source" at Revelation 3:14 is, I believe, a mistranslation. Nowhere in the NT does this word have that meaning. It should be translated "beginning" as at Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13.

**Hiroshi** · 01-23-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

So is the Didache translation a Bible translation? If so, chapters 7:1-7:4 of which book are you referring to?

**gmcbroom** · 01-24-2011

Hiroshi,
I know you don't believe in the Trinity and this has actually puzzled me because the Jehova's Witnesses in the the beginning of your sect clearly did. I don't have the reference in front of me but I'm looking for it. I was invited to a Kingdom Hall and shown that you all have intensive historical records from the beginning of your order in order to answer anyones questions about your faith and it's stances. I suggest you don't take my word for it, review them.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

**gmcbroom** · 01-24-2011

Hiroshi,
As for the Didache, that was the only one I could find online and it had multiple translations. However, it was a small document more an outline or manual than anything else.
Peace be wuith you
gmcbroom

**Hiroshi** · 01-24-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

Hiroshi,
I know you don't believe in the Trinity and this has actually puzzled me because the Jehova's Witnesses in the the beginning of your sect clearly did. I don't have the reference in front of me but I'm looking for it. I was invited to a Kingdom Hall and shown that you all have intensive historical records from the beginning of your order in order to answer anyones questions about your faith and it's stances. I suggest you don't take my word for it, review them.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

I have never heard before that Jehovah's Witnesses once believed in the Trinity. But certainly there have been many changes in our understanding of the Bible from the earliest times. These include our stand on neutrality (we refuse military service) and with regard to participation in celebrations such as Christmas. We were willing to study, learn and readjust our thinking when necessary.

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

As for the Didache, that was the only one I could find online and it had multiple translations. However, it was a small document more an outline or manual than anything else.

I see. Thanks.

**gmcbroom** · 01-25-2011

Hiroshi, I found it. Look under Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 7. That was according to your founder Russell. Though after his death the Trinity was looked on as more satanic though. So it would seem that there was a differing of opinion among the leaders of the Watch Tower after he died.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

**IAmZamzam** · 01-25-2011

Originally Posted by Hiroshi

English Standard Version reads: "everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable to judgment", and a footnote says: "a. Some manuscripts insert without cause".

Is this the variance that you refer to?

Yep.

8letters

**gmcbroom** · 01-25-2011

What do you guys mean by variance? It's discussing anger.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

**Hiroshi** · 01-26-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

Hiroshi, I found it. Look under Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 7. That was according to your founder Russell. Though after his death the Trinity was looked on as more satanic though. So it would seem that there was a differing of opinion among the leaders of the Watch Tower after he died.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

Wikipedia says this:

"Russell believed in the divinity of Christ, but differed from orthodoxy by teaching Jesus had received that divinity as a gift from the Father, after dying on the cross. He also taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the manifestation of God's power."

If you check out the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

You will see that Russell attended a number of different churches and even considered other religions in his search for the truth. Finally he returned to the Bible and began an intense study of it. It would not surprise me to read that, in early times, Russell still held on to some traditional church doctrines that were later abandoned by JWs as false. But the description of his "trinity" belief given above seems hardly different from what JWs today believe. We believe that Jesus is a divine being but not Almighty God himself. And we believe that the holy spirit is not a person.

**Hiroshi** · 01-26-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Yep.

8letters

Doesn't make a huge amount of difference surely?

**Hiroshi** · 01-26-2011

Originally Posted by gmcbroom

What do you guys mean by variance? It's discussing anger.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

Some ancient manuscripts insert the words: "without cause" at Matthew 5:22 and some do not. So there is a variant reading.

**IAmZamzam** · 01-29-2011

Of course it makes a difference. Telling people not to get angry with others and telling them merely not to needlessly get angry with others are two different commands altogether, and thus the textual variance amounts to a difference in doctrine.

**Hiroshi** · 01-29-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Of course it makes a difference. Telling people not to get angry with others and telling them merely not to needlessly get angry with others are two different commands altogether, and thus the textual variance amounts to a difference in doctrine.

My aplogies for the delay in replying (illness over last two days).

You make a good point here and it might seem that there is a doctrinal difference in the wording to anyone unfamiliar with the NT Greek. But the verb used in the sentence is in the aorist tense which denotes continuous action. Not all translations show this.

For example, the NIV reads: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother ... etc."

But the Amplified Bible reads: "But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother ..."

And the New World Translation reads: " However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother ..."

The command here is not to never be angry but rather to not continue in a wrathful state, grudgingly refusing to forgive a fellow disciple. There should be no cause to behave in such an unmerciful manner. So the additional words in the variant reading "without cause" do not contradict or change the meaning of the command.

**IAmZamzam** · 01-29-2011

They do contradict it because the other version does not contain the same word. Adding "without cause" still changes the meaning, as "causeless" or "needless" is a different concept from "continuous". And even if the addition were totally redundant (in which case there would have been no reason for it in the first place), it still would be an addition and therefore a corruption.

**Hiroshi** · 01-29-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

They do contradict it because the other version does not contain the same word.

What word?

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Adding "without cause" still changes the meaning, as "causeless" or "needless" is a different concept from "continuous".

Properly translated, the verse is obviously referring to needless anger. The Bible contains instructions of how to resolve disputes between disciples so that these can be quickly ended (Matthew 18:15-17). But it may be that one or the other continues wrathful even after the matter is settled. In such a case he would be in the wrong because it would mean that he was needlessly harbouring a grudge against the other. This is the kind of anger that is referred to in Matthew 5:22.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

And even if the addition were totally redundant (in which case there would have been no reason for it in the first place), it still would be an addition and therefore a corruption.

Yes, I admit that. But it doesn't cause a problem.

**IAmZamzam** · 01-29-2011

No, it is a problem. Continuous anger doesn't have to be needless anger, nor is needless anger always continuous. The verse says what it says. The best that can be assumed is a lack of clarity and unambiguity. Not to mention that it also says that anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire even though Jesus (P) does angrily call people fools later on in the very same Gospel (chapter 23, verse 17).

**Hiroshi** · 01-30-2011

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

No, it is a problem. Continuous anger doesn't have to be needless anger, nor is needless anger always continuous. The verse says what it says. The best that can be assumed is a lack of clarity and unambiguity. Not to mention that it also says that anyone who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire even though Jesus (P) does angrily call people fools later on in the very same Gospel (chapter 23, verse 17).

Obviously, indignation and wrath can be justified in some circumstances and unjustified in others. Also, it may be right sometimes to accuse someone of being a fool, a thief or a murderer if the person’s actions show that they are such. But it would be wrong to do so simply out of anger and without evidence.

Matthew 5:22 is concerned with a scenario where these things are unjustified whereas Matthew 23:17 is an occasion where they are.

In his speech in chapter 5 of Matthew Jesus quotes a number of commands from the Mosaic Law concerning when a sin is committed. He then goes on to instruct his listeners to avoid even the thinking and conduct that could lead to the committing of that sin.

For example, Matthew 5:27-28 says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

And Matthew 5:33-34 says “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:”

Now with this in view we could take another look at Matthew 5:22 and include also verse 21: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

Following the same procedure as in the other verses, Jesus is here telling his listeners that they must not commit murder, but also even beyond that, they must not act and think in a manner that could lead to the committing of a murder. Examples of such conduct would be a hatred of someone arising from continuing anger and evident in stinging outbursts of abusive speech. In the context of Matthew 5:22, this is obviously exactly what Jesus is describing. But now turning to Matthew 23:17 we observe that Jesus is here exposing the hypocrisy and foolishness of the Pharisees by logical reasoning and explanation. He does not hate the men themselves but he hates what they are doing and rightfully calls them to account for it.

**IAmZamzam** · 02-01-2011

What he was clearly doing was listing a hierarchy of offenses. Murder is worst of all, anger less than that yet still sort of in the same ballpark, and calling people things like "fool" at the bottom of the list. The connecting thread being hostility. But the "fool" part is still on the list, and he broke his own rule in that very same Gospel. I doubt very much you would have restricted the "anger" part to "anger that could lead to the committing of a murder" if you had not heard of this contradiction. Biblical apologetics is all about retroactive reinterpretation.