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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Fine, that is how you feel, research and a scholarly approach with careful referencing is of no concern to you, it does not matter. I hope others do not have that attitude and it is certainly NOT the attitude of either Western or Muslim scholars.

Hugo, we have already established that scholarly approach are mere words you throw around when lost at best for a logical explanation for your own contradictory biblical contents against itself let alone other pieces of literature.. the best you've been able to come up with is 'what other reason could there be for including it if it isn't the truth' so Please cease and desist with your repeated one liner that you can't seem to make applicable to anything you write. It doesn't matter what the attitude is, nor does it matter the person who wrote them, what matters is can you substantiate your own claims from your own bible so that it makes cohesive logical sense. So far we have seen no consistency at all from you. Age of the material doesn't equal 'validity' nor does it counteract the laundry list of internal contradictions.

all the best

In keeping with the original Thread before the detours:

Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

By Bassam Zawadi

(Note: Most of the material in this article has been taken from Naser Al Moghamis's Book "Christianity and Islam According to the Bible and Quran")

This article will be divided into sections...

• What the Bible and Quran say about God

-God's Power

-Can God be seen?

-God's Description

-Is God Just?

-Does God sleep?

-Is God Unhelpful?

• What the Bible and Quran say about the Prophets

-Prophet Moses and Prophet Aaron
-Prophet Lot
-Prophet Solomon
-Prophet Jacob
-Prophet David
-Prophet Noah
-Prophet Job

• What the Bible and Quran say about Prophet Jesus

-Was Jesus Crucified and Cursed
-Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards His Mother
-Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards People

• What the Bible and Quran say about Women

-Women's Original Sin
-Women's Veil
-Women's Role
-Women's Testimony
-Women's Inheritance
-Women's Cleanness
-Women's Right to Worship
-Women's Right to Divorce

• Other Teachings and Beliefs

-Faith and Deeds
-The original sin
-Polygamy
-The Biblical and Quranic Styles
-Wisdom and Knowledge
-Racism
-Killing the Enemy's Women and Children
-Languages
-Worship
-Forbidding Evil
-Hypocrisy
-Wine
-Blood Sacrifice

What The Bible and Quran Say About God

God's Power

Bible says:

Genesis 32:28

Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, [a] because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

Quran says:

Surah 22:74

They measure not God with His true measure; surely God is All-strong, All-mighty.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible whom a man is able to overcome or worship a God who cannot be overcome by anyone or anything? The God that cannot be overcome can only be the one true God; the God that revealed the Glorious Quran.

Can God be Seen?

Bible says:

Genesis 32:30

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Exodus 24:9,10

9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself.

These verses contradict with...

Exodus 33:20
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Quran says:

Surah 6:103

No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who is finite enough to be seen by a man or would you worship a God that is so infinite that that He cannot be perceived by any human being due to our limited senses? This is the Only True God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

God's Description

Bible says:

2 Samuel 22:9,11

9 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.

11 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared [a] on the wings of the wind.

Quran says:

Surah 6:93

And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah,

Surah 42:11

There is nothing whatever like unto HIM, and HE is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.

Surah 16:74

Therefore do not give likenesses to Allah; surely Allah knows and you do not know.

I have no comments; anyone with common sense can easily identify which is the true portrayal of God.

Is God Just?

Bible says:

Psalm 7:6

Arise, O LORD, in your anger;
rise up against the rage of my enemies.
Awake, my God; decree justice.

Job 19:6-7

6 then know that God has wronged me
and drawn his net around me.
7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response;
though I call for help, there is no justice.

Quran says:

Surah 10:44

Verily, God wrongs not man at all, but men do wrong themselves.

Surah 4:40

Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

Surah 14:42

Think not that God doth not heed the deeds of those who do wrong. He but giveth them respite against a Day when the eyes will fixedly stare in horror

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who does not decree justice to all people or would you worship a God who is All-Just? The All-Just God can only be the one true God, the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

Does God Sleep?

Bible says:

Psalm 78:65

Then the Lord awoke as from sleep,
as a man wakes from the stupor of wine.

Psalm 44:23

Awake, O Lord! Why do you sleep?
Rouse yourself! Do not reject us forever.

Quran says:

Surah 2:255

Allah! There is no Allah save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who sleeps just like us human beings or would you worship a God who does not sleep because He is never tired? The latter account of God can only be the authentic one, and the only true God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

Is God Unhelpful?

Bible says:

Psalm 44:24

Why do you hide your face
and forget our misery and oppression?

Mark 15:34

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"?which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Quran says:

Surah 2:186

And when My servants question thee concerning Me, then surely I am nigh. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he crieth unto Me. So let them hear My call and let them trust in Me, in order that they may be led aright.

Surah 27:62

Or, Who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and Who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides God? Little it is that ye heed!

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who doesn't answer the call of His servants or would you worship a God who does? The All-Hearing God can only be the One True God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

What The Bible and Quran Say About The Prophets

Prophet Moses and Aaron

Bible says:

Deuteronomy 32:48-51

48 On that same day the LORD told Moses, 49 "Go up into the Abarim Range to Mount Nebo in Moab, across from Jericho, and view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession. 50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites.

Exodus 32:3-4

3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [a] O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

Quran says:

Surah 19:51-53

And mention in the Book Moses; he was devoted, and he was a Messenger, a Prophet. We called to him from the right side Of the Mount, and We brought him near in communion. And We gave him his brother Aaron, of Our mercy, a Prophet.

Surah 33:69

O ye who believe! Be not as those who slandered Moses, but Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, and he was well esteemed in Allah's sight.

Surah 20:90,91

And certainly Haroun had said to them before: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order.

They said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Musa returns to us.

Prophet Lot

Bible says:

Genesis 19:33-36

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

Quran says:

Surah 6:86

And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:

Surah 21:74,75

And (as for) Lut, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town which wrought abominations; surely they were an evil people, transgressors;

And We took him into Our mercy; surely he was of the good.

Prophet Solomon

Bible says:

1 Kings 11:4-7

4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

Quran says:

Surah 2:102
And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angles) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew.

Surah 38:30

And We bestowed on David, Solomon. How excellent a slave! Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (toward Allah).

Surah 27:15

And We verily gave knowledge unto David and Solomon, and they said: Praise be to Allah, Who hath preferred us above many of His believing slaves!

Prophet Jacob

Bible says:

Genesis 27:36

36 Esau said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob [a] - He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright, and now he's taken my blessing!" Then he asked, "Haven't you reserved any blessing for me?"

Hosea 12:2-4

The LORD has a charge to bring against Judah;
he will punish Jacob [a] according to his ways
and repay him according to his deeds.
3 In the womb he grasped his brother's heel;
as a man he struggled with God.
4 He struggled with the angel and overcame him;
he wept and begged for his favor.
He found him at Bethel
and talked with him there-

Quran says:

Surah 21:72,73

And We bestowed upon him Isaac, and Jacob as a grandson. Each of them We made righteous.

Surah 38:45-47

And make mention of Our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts and vision. Lo! We purified them with a pure thought, remembrance of the Home (of the Hereafter).Lo! in Our sight they are verily of the elect, the excellent.

Prophet David

Bible says:

2 Samuel 11:2-26

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant.".....

14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."...

26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him.

Quran says:

Surah 27:15

And We verily gave knowledge unto David and Solomon, and they said: Praise be to Allah, Who hath preferred us above many of His believing slaves!

Surah 38:17

Bear with what they say, and remember Our bondman David, lord of might, Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (toward Allah).

Surah 38:20

We made his kingdom strong and gave him wisdom and decisive speech.

Surah 38:25

So We forgave him that; and lo! he had access to Our presence and a happy journey's end.

Prophet Noah

Bible says:

Genesis 9:20-25

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

Quran says:

Surah 3:33

Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of 'Imran above (all His) creatures.

Surah 17:3

They were) the seed of those whom We carried (in the ship) along with Noah. Lo! he was a grateful slave.

Prophet Job

Bible says:

Job 3:1

1 After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth.

Job 10:2-3

2 I will say to God: Do not condemn me,
but tell me what charges you have against me. 3 Does it please you to oppress me,
to spurn the work of your hands,
while you smile on the schemes of the wicked?

Job 19:6-7

6 then know that God has wronged me
and drawn his net around me.
7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response;
though I call for help, there is no justice.
Job 24:1

1 "Why does the Almighty not set times for judgment?
Why must those who know him look in vain for such days?

Job 31:6

6 let God weigh me in honest scales
and he will know that I am blameless-

Job 34:9

9 For he says, 'It profits a man nothing
when he tries to please God.'

Quran says:

Surah 38:41

And make mention (O Muhammad) of Our bondman Job, when he cried unto his Lord (saying): Lo! the devil doth afflict me with distress and torment. (And it was said unto him): Strike the ground with thy foot. This (spring) is a cool bath and a refreshing drink.And We bestowed on him (again) his household and therewith the like thereof, a mercy from Us, and a memorial for men of understanding.And (it was said unto him): Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith, and break not thine oath. Lo! We found him steadfast, how excellent a slave! Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (to his Lord).

Christians believe that their Prophets committed all of these disgusting acts, yet they attack the moral character of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Ironic isn't it?

What the Bible and Quran say about Prophet Jesus

Was Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) Crucified and Cursed?

Bible says:

Galatians 3:13

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[a]

Footnotes:

1. Galatians 3:13 Deut. 21:23

Quran says:

Surah 3:45

(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

Surah 4:157-158

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

The bible says that Prophet Jesus was crucified to bear God's wrath for the sins of the believers and accordingly he was cursed. On the contrary, Muslims believe, according to the Quran, that he was neither crucified nor cursed but was held and will be held in honor in this life and in the Hereafter.

Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards His Mother

Bible says:

John 2:3-4

3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
Matthew 12:47-49
47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[a]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Quran says:

Surah 19:30-32

He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

The Quran affirms that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was kind in his treatment of his mother. For the Muslim, it is totally unbelievable that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) called his mother 'Woman' and that he ignored her when she wanted to speak to him. Allah has commanded us in the Quran to treat our mothers kindly even if they are unbelievers.

Surah 31:14

And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal. "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

How could we then believe that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) behaved in this way towards his mother Mary who was the best and of the most righteous women on earth?:

Surah 3:42

And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.

Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards People

Bible says:

Matthew 12:39

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 23:33

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Luke 11:40

40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

Matthew 16:23

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Luke 19:27

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Quran says:

Surah 43:63

When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear God and obey me.

Surah 19:32

"(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

According to the Bible, Prophet Jesus used to insult his people and even his disciples.

In contrast, the Quran indicates that Prophet Jesus was kind and wise in his behavior towards his people.

Homepage

What the Bible and Quran Say About Women

Women's Original Sin

Bible says:

Genesis 3: 16
16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

When anesthetics came out the Christian church said that it is not okay for women to use it during child birth because that would go against god's plan that women must feel pain while she gives birth.

1 Timothy 2:11-14
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Quran says:

Surah 7:21-22

And he (Satan) swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"

Surah 20:121,122

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. But his Lord chose him (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him Guidance.

According to the Quran both Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan. The Quran points out that both of them were responsible for their sin. However, Adam and Eve prayed earnestly to Allah for forgiveness and He forgave them of their sins. So in the Quran we have a story about "original forgiveness" not "original sin".

According to the Bible, Eve was the sinner and because of her sin all humans are born in sin.

Women's Veil

My comments are in red font.

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 11:3-12
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (This shows a hierarchy of authority, funny notice how Christ is under god. But more importantly notice how the woman is under the man) 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (this shows that man is glory of God so they don't have to cover their heads, but not women. They are the glory of men, therefore they have to cover their heads) 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels (some bible commentaries talk but about an incident in which the angels fell in love with the women and came down to earth and took them as wives. Therefore women should cover their heads in order not to tempt the angels to come down and take them as wives this is supported by
Genesis 6: 1-4
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward?when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment;

This article proves it was angels http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Read more about this topic here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_purpose_of__the_women_s_veil_in_the_quran_and_ bible

Quran says:

Surah 33:59

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.

Surah 33:53

Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Just compare the reasons for the veil in each scripture and then tell me which women have honor.

Women's Role

Bible says:

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Exodus 21:7

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

1 Timothy 5:9,10

9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a]10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

Quran says:

Surah 2:228

And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise.

The Bible and Quran are in agreement on the headship of the man over the family. Yet Christians criticize Islam for this. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot because their own scripture teaches the same thing.

Islam treats the man and woman fairly. The woman has rights similar to those of the man. However, Islam assigns to the man and the woman responsibilities which suit their physiological and psychological qualities. The man as a head of the family has a duty to earn money to provide his wife and children with all the requirements of life such as accommodation, food and clothes. The woman is assigned the task of keeping house and bringing up future generations. The woman in Islam is not responsible for any financial obligations. She is not burdened with any duties other than her house and children.

Since no organization can work successfully without a leader, the husband is appointed as leader of the family which is like a small organization. Without a leader, the family will be in complete disorder and the marriage may end in a divorce.

Women's Testimony

Bible says:

Numbers 5:11-31
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure?or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [b] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [c] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [d] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.'

This just shows that the woman is guilty unless proven innocent.

Deuteronomy 22:11-21
Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

This just shows that the woman is guilty unless proven innocent.

Numbers 30: 4-8,16

4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

This shows that the father can cancel his daughter's oath.
6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
This shows the husband can cancel his wife's oath.
This also means that it is difficult for a woman to conduct business because no one would trust her. If she made an agreement, then her father or husband can just as easily come and annul that agreement.
In Surah 24, we read that if a man wants to accuse his wife of adultery then he has to bring 4 witnesses forward and if he cannot provide those 4 witnesses than he has to take 5 oaths. Then if the wife wants to negate that evidence of his then she does the same. That shows that the woman's testimony is equal to that of a man. If a man also wants to accuse a chaste woman of being adulterous then he must provide witnesses, they wont just take his testimony because he is a man. If he doesn't provide that testimony then he is to be lashed 80 times. Look how Islam protects the women from being falsely accused. If both of them testify then the judge will declare that they should separate and not be married together anymore because of the tension between them.
Read more here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_testimony_of_women_in_the_bible_

Quran says:

Surah 24:6-9

As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth.

Surah 24:4

And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -

Surah 24:23

Lo! as for those who traduce virtuous, believing women (who are) careless, cursed are they in the world and the Hereafter. Theirs will be an awful doom.

According to the judgment of the Bible, if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin, the wife's father and mother have to bring proof that she was a virgin; otherwise the wife will be stoned to death! The wife's testimony carries no weight!
According to the judgment of the Glorious Quran, if a man accuses his wife of committing adultery, the wife can nullify the accusation as her testimony is accepted, and consequently, the wife will not be punished. However, if the accuser is not her husband, then he has to bring four witnesses. If not, he will receive eighty lashes and his testimony will be rejected forever.

Look at how the Quran uplifts the woman!

Women's Inheritance

Bible says:

Numbers 27:8-11

8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "

This shows that the daughters would not get anything if the sons were alive unlike Islam, which would give her half of the son's.

Numbers 36:6-9

6 This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father's tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9 No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits."

This shows that if a woman did inherit and wanted to get married she had to marry someone from with in the tribe in order not to transfer that inherited money to another tribe. The money must stay in the tribe, unlike Muslim women who can marry whom ever they please.

Quran says:

Surah 4:7

Unto the men (of a family) belongeth a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be little or much - a legal share.

Surah 4:11

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

The woman in Islam has a share of inheritance. The daughter's portion is half that of the son. This share is very generous given that, in Islam, the man's financial obligations are by far more than those of the woman. The man gives the dowry to his wife. He pays for all the necessities of life such as accommodation, food and clothes. He supports his parents in addition to his wife and children. On the other hand, the wife does not have to support anyone even herself because her husband is responsible for maintaining her, no matter how rich she is. It is worth noting that in some cases the woman's share of inheritance is equal to that of the man.

Recommended reading

http://www.islam101.com/sociology/inheritance.htm

Women's Cleanness

Bible says:

Leviticus 15:19-22, 25-30

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Quran says:

Surah 2:222

They ask you about menstruation: say, "It is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it. Once they are rid of it, you may have intercourse with them in the manner designed by GOD. GOD loves the repenters, and He loves those who are clean."

The Bible describes a woman's period as if it is a highly contagious disease which can be passed to other people through physical contact. In addition, a woman's discharge of blood is considered a sin of which she has to repent!
In Islam, a woman's period or discharge of blood is neither considered a sin or a transmittable disease. During a woman's period, the husband and the wife can do everything except sexual intercourse, because it is harmful according to the Quran.

Read the following articles for a deeper insight...

http://islamic-answers.com/women_are_the_source_of_men_s_unclean_state_

http://islamic-answers.com/how_does_the_bible_view_and_treat_women_during_the ir_menses__

Women's Right To Worship

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Quran says:

Surah 33:35
For Muslim men and women, - for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise, - for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

This verse indicates that the spiritual and moral duties for men and women in Islam are the same - Both have to believe, both have to pray, both have to fast, both have to give Zakat, etc, etc.

Women's Right For Divorce

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 7:13

"And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him."

So a believing woman is forced to stay with her unbelieving husband. She has to risk having her spiritual beliefs affected by her unbelieving husband.
So it is the unbelieving man's choice to divorce the believing woman if he wills. She cannot leave him, even if she fears that their children would be negatively influenced by the father's "Non-Christian" spiritual beliefs.

So according to Christianity, women are not even allowed to protect their little kids' spiritual beliefs from their unbelieving husbands!

In Islam a Muslim woman is only allowed to marry a Muslim man in order to protect her spiritual beliefs.

Other Teachings and Beliefs

Faith and Deeds
Bible says:

Romans 10:9
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Galatians 2:16,21
16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified....21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

These verses contradict with these verses from the bible...

James 2:14
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
James 2:17
17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:24
24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Quran says:

Surah 4:123-124
It will not be in accordance with your desires, nor the desires of the People of the Scripture. He who doeth wrong will have the recompense thereof, and will not find against Allah any protecting friend or helper.And whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone.
Surah 24:39
As for those who disbelieve, their deeds are as a mirage in a desert. The thirsty one supposeth it to be water till he cometh unto it and findeth it naught, and findeth, in the place thereof, Allah Who payeth him his due; and Allah is swift at reckoning.

The Original Sin
Bible says:

Romans 5:19
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 1:21-25
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 3:18
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

This contradicts with...

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20-23

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Quran says:

Surah 20:121-122
Then they twain ate thereof, so that their shame became apparent unto them, and they began to hide by heaping on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him.
Surah 53:36-39
Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses. And Abraham who paid his debt: That no laden one shall bear another's load, And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort,

Polygamy
There is not a single clear cut verse in the bible that prohibits polygamy. http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm
I recommend reading the following article
http://www.islamawareness.net/Polygamy/why.html

The Biblical and Quranic Styles
Bible says:

Ezekiel 23:20
20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

Quran says:

Surah 16:112
And Allah sets forth a parable: (Consider) a town safe and secure to which its means of subsistence come in abundance from every quarter; but it became ungrateful to Allah's favors, therefore Allah made it to taste the utmost degree of hunger and fear because of what they wrought.
Surah 41:15-18
Then as to Ad, they were unjustly proud in the land, and they said: Who is mightier in strength than we? Did they not see that Allah Who created them was mightier than they in strength, and they denied Our communications? So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, that We may make them taste the chastisement of abasement in this world's life; and certainly the chastisement of the hereafter is much more abasing, and they shall not be helped. And as to Samood, We showed them the right way, but they chose error above guidance, so there overtook them the scourge of an abasing chastisement for what they earned. And We delivered those who believed and guarded (against evil).

In order to show the seriousness of idolatry and sins committed by Israel and Judah, the Bible pictured Samaria and Jerusalem as two sisters engaged in prostitution. This prostitution metaphor is often used in the Bible, (Ezekiel 16:2-32, Jeremiah 3:1)

The author of these verses used very lewd sexual expressions and words which obviously cannot be attributed to Allah. If any moral person cannot utter these words, then how could we believe that Allah spoke them?

In contrast, when the Quran talks about the sins committed by some people and their punishment, it uses very noble and impressive language which moves the reader to tears and fills the heart with awe. It does not take long for the reader to recognize the beauty and majesty of the Word of Allah.

Wisdom and Knowledge
Bible says:

Ecclesiastes 1:18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes 2:15
Then I thought in my heart,
"The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?"
I said in my heart,
"This too is meaningless."

Quran says:

Surah 2:269
He grants wisdom to whom He pleases, and whoever is granted wisdom, he indeed is given a great good and none but men of understanding mind.
Surah 58:11
O you who believe! when it is said to you, Make room in (your) assemblies, then make ample room, Allah will give you ample, and when it is said: Rise up, then rise up. Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high degrees; and Allah is Aware of what you do.

Racism
Bible says:

Genesis 9:20-25

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

Deuteronomy 23:20
20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.

Quran says:

Surah 49:13
O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.
Surah 8:63
And (as for the believers) hath attuned their hearts. If thou hadst spent all that is in the earth thou couldst not have attuned their hearts, but Allah hath attuned them. Lo! He is Mighty, Wise.

Killing the Enemy's Women and Children
Bible says:

1 Samuel 15:2,3
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Numbers 31:17,18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 20:16
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Quran says:

Surah 2:190
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
Surah 8:61
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)
Surah 5:28
"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds.
Surah 2:193
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.
Surah 60:8-9
God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Languages
Bible says:

Genesis 11:1-7

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Quran says:

Surah 30:22
And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Lo! herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge.

According to the Bible, the difference in languages was a plot from God who felt jealous and afraid when He saw men speaking the same language.
Allah says in the Quran that the difference in languages is a miracle, and not a curse. Allah does not plot jealously against humans. All humans cannot do anything against the will of Allah and can neither harm nor benefit the Almighty Allah whether they speak one language or not.

Worship
Bible says:

Psalm 33:2,3
2 Praise the LORD with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.
Psalm 150:1-5

1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Footnotes:

2. Psalm 150:1 Hebrew Hallelu Yah ; also in verse 6

Quran says:

Surah 3:113
They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him).
Surah 19:58-61
These are they unto whom Allah showed favour from among the prophets, of the seed of Adam and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the revelations of the Beneficent were recited unto them, they fell down, adoring and weeping. Now there hath succeeded them a later generation whom have ruined worship and have followed lusts. But they will meet deception. Save him who shall repent and believe and do right. Such will enter the Garden, and they will not be wronged in aught -Gardens of Eden, which the Beneficent hath promised to His slaves in the unseen. Lo! His promise is ever sure of fulfilment -
Surah 22:77
O ye who believe! Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord, and do good, that haply ye may prosper.
Surah 31:6
And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom.
Surah 32:15-18
Only those believe in Our revelations who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and hymn the praise of their Lord, and they are not scornful, Who forsake their beds to cry unto their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of that We have bestowed on them. No soul knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do. Is he who is a believer like unto him who is an evil-liver? They are not alike.

The purpose of worship in Islam is to purify and cleanse the soul and daily life of sin and evil. The most fundamental and the most important act of worship is 'Salah', which is the five daily prayers. These daily prayers strengthen attachment to Allah and remind of commitments to Him. They help to prevent the Muslim from being dragged into unlawful worldly activities. The prayers are performed five times a day to ensure this purification.

Surah 29:45
Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of God is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And God knows the (deeds) that ye do.

Performing prayer in congregation in mosques creates among the Muslims bonds of love and equality. The poor and the rich, the low and the high the black and the white, all stand shoulder to shoulder and prostrate themselves before the Lord; racial pride and arrogance die out. They stand in full devotion and humility reciting the Verses of the Quran, giving thanks to Allah and asking Him for forgiveness and help without intermediaries and without priests. No other faith can be like Islam in this close, direct and noble relationship with Allah. In the mosque there is no priests claiming the authority to forgive sins on behalf of Allah and turning the hearts of people from pure worship to one God. In the mosque there is no music to occupy the mind and divert it away from clear thinking and understanding.

Furthermore, worship in Islam is not limited to the mosque only. Every good action is considered an act of worship if it is performed sincerely for the sake of Allah and according to His Law. Even dealings with parents, relatives and people can be acts of worship if they are done according to the instructions of Allah for His pleasure. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"Removing obstructions and dirt from the way is charity,"
and he also said:
"Giving your brother a smile is charity, and helping a person load his animal is charity."

Hypocrisy
Bible says:

1 Corinthians 9:19-20
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Quran says:

Surah 4:138
To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty; -
Surah 4:145
The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them; -

Wine
Bible says:

Ecclesiastes 10:19
19 A feast is made for laughter,
and wine makes life merry,
but money is the answer for everything.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun? all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [a] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
John 4:46

46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.

Quran says:

Surah 5:90-91
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, - of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

Blood Sacrifice
Bible says:

Most Christians erroneously assume that God always needed a sacrifice in order to please Him. However, they are mistaken. These verses from the Bible clearly show it.

Hosea 6:6

6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Jeremiah 7:31

31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

But how can it enter God's (Father) mind to have his own son (Jesus) crucified?

Ezekiel 18:21,22,24

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

This verse is simply stating that if someone turns away from the evil he has done, then God will forgive him. There does not need to be any bloodshed. This is what we believe in Islam as well.

Isaiah 66:3
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

This verse shows that blood sacrifices are useless in the eyes of God.

Psalm 51:16-19
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 The sacrifices of God are [a] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
18 In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

What God truly wants is for us to be sincerely regretful when we commit sins and to turn to him.

Matthew 6:9-15
"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

We are asking God to forgive us of our sins the same way we forgive people also. If Jesus was crucified for our sins then why should we ask God for forgiveness of our sins if the debt has already been paid for on the cross?

Feel free to contact me at [email protected]

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

The claim can be substantiated and has been, we are merely working with biblical content of contradiction, we haven't gone into historical worth!

PLEASE bring the proof that you know WHO the rabbi was who allegedly corrupted the Abraham story?

Age of manuscript doesn't denote accuracy of manuscript. It is in fact Christian scholars and not Muslim ones that contend that your 'original' bible if such a thing has ever been is now lost. The content that we have to work with is filled with contradiction. Other sources whether religious or historical have more weightiness than forgeries of old!

This is plainly nonsense. If what you say is true then the ancient Qu'ranic manuscripts are also unreliable. But it is obvious that all other things being equal the oldest copy is assumed to be the more accurate. You speak of forgeries but have not produced a single bit of evidence to back up your claim.

That is in fact the whole point, bringing an argument from Islamic text is sure to be met with your usual barrage of protest.. what better source than the bible itself, corrupt and exposes itself as erroneous at the same time!

Well bring the text and let us see. But here we have the usual circular argument about corruption, one cannot use such an argument because to do so would mean you are in possession of the original else one cannot know what is or is not corrupted. What we have here is that the Qu'ran and the Bible differ, those differences are irreconcilable, and rather that simply accept that it is necessary it seems for Muslims to construct an impossible and irrational argument about corruption. One might say indeed, but can you prove it? the evidence for Bible material is well established against other literature, against itself and against independent historical sources. Not the case with the Qu'ran, not in agreement with itself, not in agreement with common sense, and not in agreement with history and every account in it is mirrored in much earlier sources. If you'd like to start a thread on the corruption of the bible vs. the Quran pls do so on a separate thread in keeping with the integrity of this, there is more to the term evidence than your protests and mere hearsay!

The sources you quoted are extensive but you are treating everything as if it is fact and these sources mix up fact, legend and apologetics all the time so they cannot be simply read. For example, Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh is obviously legend. Chumash is the Hebrew word for the first 5 book of Moses and many of your quotations simply repeat the Biblical account with a bit of embroidery. You can see what I mean from the following which appears to say Ishmael lived a very very long time but it just your cutting and pasting is muddled.

“We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation …Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world."

Similarly, we have nonsense such as "in the year 2047 from Creation" again showing it is legend not fact but interspersed with Biblical events such as Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried Abraham but how we end up from the story as proof that Isaac was not the first born I cannot say since the Biblical record is plain and the writer is muddled over the son of the flesh and what the Bible calls the son of the promise. Similarly, the Academy of Eber is just part of Jewish mythology and this is obvious when we read about sending Ishmael to the Academy of Eber in Jerusalem which it is doubtful even existed at that time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

In your post 49 not a single Islamic source is quoted, not one. All I am asking is that you tell us the source and explained it or is it you practice to trust unreferenced sources. So far on this issue you have posted about 25,000 words, which you must know no one will read, just today without any answer that I can find, one supposes because you don't have any.

? if you can stick something into google as you have done with Al-Manar and come up with the conclusion that 60%+ of his post is from such and such site, then you can do that for what I have posted to no? I keep asking you to level your allegations against the biblical content not the writer since it is directly quoted from your bible or Jewish text which you can back reference, do you think you can do that or are you at a loss as usual for anything useful to say? Forget about the obvious conclusion drawn by the writer, you reconcile for us the passages 'of antiquity' what say you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

PLEASE bring the proof that you know WHO the rabbi was who allegedly corrupted the Abraham story? This is plainly nonsense. If what you say is true then the ancient Qu'ranic manuscripts are also unreliable. But it is obvious that all other things being equal the oldest copy is assumed to be the more accurate. You speak of forgeries but have not produced a single bit of evidence to back up your claim.

You don't need names for corruptions to be manifest, all you have to do is super-impose the written content against itself-- naming names won't solve the issues that your biblical passages clearly don't agree.. pls. tell me you have something else up your sleeve, than angry defensive comments. Do you have comments with which to explain why your biblical passages are at odds. again 'age' doesn't constitute truth, apparently it is only 'obvious' to you as you actually have no clue to what constitutes scholarship!

Let's have a closer look at the authorship of your 'older testament' to see if it can be considered of weightiness, authenticity or should be binned all together for dubious content, and authorship!

The late Bruce Metzger made it clear in his apologetic introduction, The New Testament, it's background, growth, and content, 1985, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 97 that the apostle Matthew can "scarcely be the final author" of the gospel attributed to him. Regarding the fourth gospel, even though the conclusion that the author was John the son of Zebedee was "early and widespread", Metzger stated that "it is clear that others were also involved in its composition and authentication." Metzger concluded: "No simple solution to the problem of authorship is possible, but it is probable that the fourth Gospel preserves Palestinian reminiscences of Jesus' ministry." (p. 98). Metzger wrote (pp. 96-97):
Actually not much is known about these matters[the identity of the evangelists and the date of composition of each Gospel]. The text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author. Of course the probabilities are that such traditions contain at least a substantial hint as to the identity of the evangelist. Sometimes, however, internal considerations are such as to cast doubt upon the full accuracy of the later tradition.

Metzger had this to say about the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (pp. 238-239):

.there are features about these letters which make it difficult to attribute them to the apostle Paul, and most scholars believe that they either were written by an amanuensis to whom Paul gave great freedom in their composition, or, more probably, where drawn up near the end of the first century by a devoted follower of Paul, who utilized several shorter letters of the apostle which otherwise would have been lost.

Metzger was quicker to dismiss the Petrine authorship of II Peter (pp. 258-259):

Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter's name.

Unlike the style of I Peter, which is written in fluent koine Greek, the style of II Peter is almost pseudo-literary. The wording is unusual, artificial, and often obscure; it is the one book in the New Testament which gains by translation. Though some have suggested that the marked difference in style between the two letters might be accounted for by supposing them to be the work of different amanuenses, several passages of II Peter point to a date long after Peter's lifetime. Thus, the section dealing with the delay of the second coming of Christ (3:3-4) presupposes that the first generation of Christians-to which Peter belonged-had passed away. Furthermore, the letters of Paul, it appears, have not only been collected but are referred to as "scripture" (3:16), a term that was not applied to them until some considerable time after the apostle's death. The second chapter of II Peter embodies most of the little letter of Jude, which probably dates from the latter part of the first century. Moreover, II Peter is not definitely referred to by early church writers until the third century, when Origen speaks of its disputed authenticity. In the light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority.

The letter is a general one addressed to all Christians in all places (1:1). An analysis of the contents shows that the author had two main purposes in writing: (a) to counteract the teaching of false prophets and heretics, and (b) to strengthen the faith of Christians in the second coming of Christ and make them living accordingly.

Regarding the authorship of Hebrews Metzger wrote (p. 248):

In addition to Paul many other guesses have been made about the author of the letter . [Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, Aquila, Priscilla] . There is no compelling proof for any of these, and the only sure conclusion about the authorship of the letter is that it was not written by Paul.

In the generally conservative introduction to the early Christian writings, approved by the conservative evangelical scholar (and dedicated to the conservative scholar Craig A. Evans), Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter (Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers) defend the traditional authorship of Mark's gospel, concluding that Mark is based on oral traditions as well as reminiscences coming from Peter. They write (p. 287):

"...we are then confronted with the difficult problem of trying to decipher which is the testimony of Peter and which are layers of tradition on top of it ..."

Lucan authorship of the third gospel and Acts is accepted with some reservations (p. 295):

"We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not without some reservation ..."

Traditional authorship of Matthew, on the other hand, is dismissed. They conclude as follows on the authorship of Matthew (p. 299):

Perhaps all that can be said about the author of this Gospel is that he was a Jewish Christian, seemingly more familiar than the other evangelists with the geography of Palestine, and possibly, on this basis, a teacher in the church.

As for the fourth gospel, we are told (p. 306):

Solving the problem of authorship does not appear to be a possibility for biblical scholars today.

McDonald and Porter reach the following conclusion after discussing the authorship of the Johannine epistles (p. 550):

These may be tempting propositions, but none of them can be definitely proved, since the ascription in the Johannine Letters is only to the "elder," leaving the identification uncertain and the work formally anonymous. As noted above, the traditional view that the author of 2 and 3 John is John the disciple or apostle, the author of 1 John and the Gospel, is not directly supported by the text. There is certainly some linkage of 2 and 3 John to 1 John in vocabulary and themes . These parallels may well show that the books issued from a similar context, but they cannot establish authorship.

After a detailed discussion on the authorship of Hebrews, they conclude (p. 521):

As stated above, none of these proposals or any others have proved conclusive regarding the authorship of Hebrews. The book is anonymous, and authorship will probably stay unknown barring further discoveries. As Origen finally concludes about the authorship of Hebrews, "God only knows the truth".

For Martin Hengel it is 'probable' that the author of the gospel of Mark 'really was a companion and interpreter of Peter.' (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, 2000, SCM Press, p. 79, also p. 80), but as for the origin of the gospel of Matthew, he writes (p. 77):

A further reason why the First Gospel established itself so quickly was its allegedly direct apostolic origin. It was the first to make this claim. The unknown Jewish-Christian author, who at the same time was a member of the mainstream church, was presumably prompted to this by his by his knowledge of an old Aramaic collection of sayings of Jesus which was known under the name of Matthew. This put him at the head of all four evangelists and, as was later the case with John, gave him a greater authority than his forerunners Mark and Luke, who were regarded only as disciples of the apostles.

Hengel believes that 'in all probability' the unknown Jewish-Christian teacher circulated his work as the 'Gospel of Matthew' from the borders of Syria/Palestine (Ibid).

According to the conservative scholar Michael Green:

We do not know who wrote the Gospel [of Matthew]. Like all the others, it is anonymous...

... [Second-century writers] do tell us who wrote them, and they may or may not have been right. In the case of Matthew, it is not at all easy to know whether they were right, because there is a major contradiction in the evidence. The external evidence points uniformly in one direction, the internal in another. (The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, 2001, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 19)

Green is inclined (p. 24) towards the following hypothesis (pp. 22-23):

... the apostle Matthew may have written the sayings collection often called Q ... Matthew, the tax collector, had the skills and the proximity to Jesus. Maybe he did the Christian church the marvellous service of collecting and writing down the sayings of his Master that are now brought to us in the teaching parts of Matthew and Luke. It would make good sense of Papias' cryptic claim that 'Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew tongue, and each one translated them as he was able.' On this interpretation, the logia would be not the Gospel as we have it, but the sayings of Jesus, taken down in Aramaic. People make their own translations of them until they got incorporated in one of the Greek Gospels later on. But, on this view, Matthew would not have written a Gospel himself.

Writing in another book, one geared heavily towards apologetics, Green writes:

We do not know exactly who this Matthew was who wrote the gospel. The early Christians thought that he was Matthew the tax gatherer who became one of Jesus' disciples, but this is unlikely, if only because he uses Mark's gospel as his basic source. And it would be very odd for an eyewitness to draw from the record of someone who was not himself present! Probably the name of Matthew became associated with this gospel because it embodies a lot of special material he gathered. This was, most likely, the account of the many sayings of Jesus, absent from Mark, which also appear in Luke. Matthew, the tax gatherer, had ample opportunity to make a record of the sayings of Jesus. (Who was Jesus?, 1992, Thomas Nelson, p. 125)

As for the gospel of John, Green states that it was either penned by the apostle John 'or written by a close disciple of his at John's direction'. (p. 126).

Conservative scholar Leon Morris, in his commentary on Matthew, despite his inclination towards Matthean authorship, leaves the authorship question open and concludes:

In the last resort it appears that the authorship of this Gospel will remain in dispute. In my opinion there is more to be said for the apostle Matthew than recent scholarship commonly allows and more for Matthew than for any other candidate. But the evidence certainly falls short of complete proof, and in the end divergent views will continue to be held.50 (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 1992, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 15)

In his commentary on the gospel of John, conservative scholar Colin G. Kruse argues for the apostle John being the author of the 'original form of the Fourth Gospel' (p. 30). He writes:

To recognize the apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel does not mean that the Gospel in the form we have it today came entirely from his hand. The epilogue contains the testimony of others to the truthfulness of what the beloved disciple wrote (21:24), a testimony that appears to have been added by others after the apostle John died. (The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, 2003, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 28)

After citing John 21:20-23, Kruse proceeds (Ibid):

Jesus' words to Peter concerning the beloved disciple gave rise to a rumour in the early church that this disciple would not die before the Lord came again. The need to scotch such a rumour would have become pressing if the beloved disciple had died, and people's faith was being unsettled by the apparent failure of Jesus' word to be fulfilled. Hence the epilogue insists, 'Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"' This suggests that the epilogue was written by others after the death of the beloved disciple.

Furthermore (pp. 28-29):

It is also possible that they made other editorial additions to the Gospel, including the testimony to the truthfulness of the beloved disciple found in 19:35. Perhaps the anonymous self-references made by the author found in the original form of the Gospel, expressions such as 'the other disciple' or 'another disciple' ... were explained as, or supplemented by, references to the beloved disciple by later editors of the Gospel. If this were the case, references to the beloved disciple need not reflect egocentrism on the part of the original author, but rather the attitude of a later generation of Christians to him and his special relationship to Jesus.

Therefore, the one(s) responsible for the final form of the fourth gospel is/are unknown.

In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, conservative evangelical scholar Craig L. Blomberg, while sympathetic towards the traditional authorship, is able to reach only a 'tentative' conclusion on the question of Matthean authorship. He writes:

All of the evidence surveyed so far ("Structure," "Theology," etc.) allows for authorship by the apostle Matthew, but none of that evidence demands it. (Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 1992, Broadman Press, p. 43)

After a brief discussion on the authorship of Matthew's gospel, Blomberg writes (p. 44):
When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition.

In light of the absence of any contrary/rival ancient authorship tradition, Matthew is reasoned by Blomberg to be the 'most plausible' (Ibid) choice for author, either of an 'original draft' (Ibid) or of 'one of its major sources' (Ibid).

Blomberg concludes (Ibid):
But again we present these conclusions tentatively. Little depends on them. Neither inspiration nor apostolic authority depends on apostolic authorship ... and the church was capable of preserving accurate information outside of apostolic circles ...


According to the prominent conservative scholar Tom Wright, a favorite of many Christian apologists:
What do we know about how the Gospels got written? Frustratingly little. We don't have Matthew's diaries of how he went about collecting and arranging his material. We don't know where Mark was written. We don't know whether Luke really was, as is often thought, the companion of Paul. We don't know whether the 'Beloved Disciple', to whom the Fourth Gospel is ascribed (John 21:24), was really 'John' (in which case, which 'John'?) or someone else. None of the books name their authors; all the traditions about who wrote which ones are just that, traditions, from later on in the life of the church (beginning in the first half of the second century, about fifty years after the Gospels were written). (Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary, 1997,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 126-127)


John Drane, a prominent evangelical conservative scholar and former student of F. F. Bruce (and I. H. Marshall), had this to say about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew:

Though some leading scholars continue to believe that the apostle Matthew was the author, it is worth pointing out that, as with all the other gospels, knowing the exact identity of the author is not going to be crucial for understanding it. The book itself is anonymous, and makes no claim at all about its author. We can be fairly certain that it would be a man, but whether he was associated with the apostle Matthew, and at what stage or in what way is impossible to say with certainty.(John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 2001, First Fortress Press Edition, p. 207)

Regarding the gospel of John, Drane writes (p. 217):

It seems at least possible that the gospel was first written in Palestine, to demonstrate that 'Jesus is the Christ' (20:31), perhaps over against the views of sectarian Jews influenced by ideas like those of the Qumran community, and then when the same teaching was seen to be relevant to people elsewhere in the Roman empire, it was revised, with Jewish customs and expressions being explained, and the prologue and epilogue added. The advice to church leaders in chapter 21 suggests that the final form of the gospel might have been directed to a Christian congregation comprised of both Jews and Gentiles somewhere in the Hellenistic world, perhaps at Ephesus.

Drane concluded (Ibid):

...there is no widely accepted opinion on the author's identity, and the consensus at this point in time can best be described as an open minded agnosticism, with many scholars willing to allow some direct connection between John the apostle and the fourth gospel, though few wish to be more precise than that.

Drane has this to say about the origins of Jude, II Peter and the Johannine epistles (p. 457):

...it might be possible to imagine that Jude and 2 Peter both originate from a group of Peter's disciples, in much the same way as the Johannine letters appear to have originated from a 'school' of John's disciples.

Of course we do not know anything about these 'disciples' of Peter and John.

Drane concludes as follows regarding the authorship of Jude and II Peter (Ibid):

Perhaps what we have in both these short letters [Jude and II Peter] is a fresh application of the teaching of Peter to the concerns and interests of a Hellenistic Jewish Christian congregation somewhere in Asia Minor towards the end of the first century.

As for the authorship of the epistle of James, Drane considers (p. 415) the evidence for associating it with James the brother of Jesus as being 'not especially convincing...' However, he argues that there are 'strong reasons' for placing it in a 'very early period of the church's life'.

Leading conservative evangelical scholar, Ben Witherington III, grants the apostle Matthew limited contribution in the gospel named after him. He says (p. 78):

It is, however, quite possible that Matthew did contribute the unique material found in this Gospel and no other, and the book came to be named after its most famous contributor, which was not uncommon in antiquity.(Ben Witherington III, The New Testament Story, 2004, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan)

In Witherington's view, there are 'clues' in John 19 and 21 that the 'source of this Gospel material is the Beloved Disciple, an eyewitness of at least some of the conclusion of Jesus' ministry, and perhaps more broadly of his Judean ministry.' (p. 82). Witherington writes (Ibid):

John 21:24 says that the Beloved Disciple is the one who testifies to at least some of the Gospel happenings and indeed wrote them down in some form. His community vouches for his testimony ("we know his testimony is true"). John 19:35 indicates that he was present at the death of Jesus, and his selfsame chapter claims only one such man was present - the Beloved Disciple to whom Jesus bequeathed his mother as he died.

Immediately thereafter Witherington states that it is 'highly unlikely' that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the fourth gospel. Witherington concludes (p. 83):

All in all it appears that we should think of the Beloved Disciple as the source of much of this material[raising of Lazarus, healing of the man born blind, episode of the lame man by the pool, Beloved Disciple reclining with and beside Jesus, Peter having his feet washed], and that he was a Judean follower of Jesus, not one of the sons of Zebedee, even though his name may have been John.

This means that we do not know who (or how many) was (were) responsible for the final form of the fourth gospel and separating the material from the Beloved Disciple and the later unknown redactor(s) would be difficult, if not impossible.

Even though Witherington believes (p. 68) that a 'reasonable case' can be made for Apollos being the author of Hebrews, he says 'we cannot be certain, and in any case the author wished to remain anonymous'.

As for the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus), Witherington believes that they were composed 'at or just after the death of Paul' perhaps by Luke or another companion of Paul, who used as a basis 'authentic notes and/or oral comments from Paul while he was in Mamertine prison in Rome in the mid-60s'. (pp. 69-70). Witherington continues:

The person who penned these letters did so in his own hand and style ... not attempting to really imitate the Pauline style, though at times (e.g., in 2 Timothy) we seem to hear the voice of Paul directly.18'(Witherington comments in a footnote that L. T. Johnson has made a 'reasonable' case for the dictation of II Timothy by Paul).

Witherington concludes (Ibid):

Furthermore, the more conservative character of some of the ethical advice in these letters may reflect the fact that the author knows that the apostolic era is about over, and the Church leaders that were to follow apostles like Paul would not have the same authority as those who had either known Jesus during his earthly life or had seen the risen Lord. The letters could be said to help Pauline coworkers [sic] make the transition to a situation beyond the time of Paul. They are certainly closer in length and in character to other ancient personal letters than the rest of the Pauline corpus. It appears that they were written from Rome in the mid to late 60s.

In other words, we do not know who composed the Pastoral Epistles.

Witherington also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 67):

It is highly probable that 2 Peter is one of the latest if not the latest New Testament document, written at a time when there had already been for some time a collection of Paul's letters being used by various churches. I would judge it comes from near the end of the first century A.D.

[Note: Plenty of conservative scholars have argued that II Peter is a pseudonymous document. Two further examples: J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black's New Testament Commentaries), 1977, Adam and Charles Black London; Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham places II Peter in the late first century: Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter and Jude, (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50), 1983, Nelson Reference.]

Conservative scholar, Richard Bauckham, believes it is unlikely that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the finished form of the gospel attributed to him:

Since it is not likely that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it ... the attribution could either be a pseudepigraphical claim to Matthean authorship or could reflect a role that the apostle Matthew actually played in the genesis of the Gospel, while not being its final author. (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 302)

Elsewhere he writes (p. 112):

...the author of Matthew's Gospel intended to associate the Gospel with the apostle Matthew but was not himself the apostle Matthew. Matthew himself could have described his own call without having to take over the way Mark described Levi's call.

[Bauckham also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter. See commentary above]

Like Ben Witherington above, conservative Evangelical scholar, David A. Desilva, also proposes limited contribution of the apostle Matthew in the gospel attributed to him. He posits that Matthew did compile an Aramaic sayings source 'recording what Jesus taught in the course of his own apostolic ministry'. This compilation then became the possession of the communities founded by Matthew. One of Matthew's disciples then took his material and 'other Jesus sayings familiar to the community and the Mark's Gospel, and fashioned a presentation of Jesus' life and instruction more complete than any of the sources on their own.' (p. 235). Desilva proceeds:

Because Matthew stood behind one of these sources, indeed the source that made this Gospel distinctive, it would be quite natural for his name to continue to stand behind the finished product as author and, more importantly for the early church, authenticator of that tradition.4 (David A. Desilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation, 2004, InterVarsity Press, pp. 235-236)

Hence the final product is the work of an unknown supposed disciple of Matthew.

Desilva denies the identification of the 'Beloved Disciple' with John the son of Zebedee. He argues that rather than being the author of the Gospel of John as we have it now,

The Beloved Disciple emerges, then, as the source of the tradition and probably its chief interpreter, and in that sense deserves the title "Evangelist", but he is not the final author. (p. 392).

In Desilva's view:

Lazarus may or may not have been the Beloved Disciple, but internal evidence points to him more plausibly than to the son of Zebedee, who may indeed play a very minor role in this Gospel. (p. 393)

On the authorship of the Johannine epistles, Desilva says that (p. 453) 'it seems much more probable that the author of the epistles did not also write the Fourth Gospel, although he may well have had a hand in editing it ...' Desilva goes on to say (p. 454):

Ultimately, then, all we can say is that the author was a respected teacher and leader within the circle of communities that ultimately drew their inspiration from the Beloved Disciple.19

Regarding the authorship of the gospel of Mark, Desilva says (p. 195) that many scholars are 'justifiably reluctant' in accepting Papias' testimony given the inaccuracies in his testimony regarding Matthew's gospel, even though 'it is also impossible to say definitely that the attribution is wrong...' He then avoids a detailed discussion by saying (p. 196):

What is certain is that resolving the matter of authorship does not enhance our reading of the Gospel, and leaving the matter open does not detract from it. These four Gospels remain the Word of God and the churches' witness to the person of Christ and pattern of discipleship irrespective of claims about authorship. The texts, not the titles, are "word of God" to the churches.

Desilva also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 878):
In 2 Peter an anonymous Christian leader has sought to preserve and defend the apostolic message for a new generation.13 In the voice of Peter, this author defends the apostolic teaching he has received against rival teachers who promote their own innovations and threaten the churches' hold on the heritage that Peter and his peers bequeathed to them.

The authorship of Hebrews is described by Desilva as follows (p. 776):

The anonymous letter to the "Hebrews" provides the interpreter with neither the identity of the author nor that of the recipients. We do not know when it was written, and the location of both author and recipients remains unclear.

L. Morris and Donald W. Burdick, in their commentary on Hebrews and James, conclude that the author of Hebrews cannot be identified:

In the end we must agree that we have no certain evidence about the authorship of Hebrews. Who wrote it remains unknown to us. We can scarcely improve on the words of Origen's conclusion, that "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth"... (Leon Morris, Donald W. Burdick, Hebrew/James (The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version), 1996, Zondervan Publishing House, p. 7)

Regarding Hebrews, Wood boasted, 'I have a good idea who wrote that'. Compare this with the above conservative verdicts, but also with the conclusion reached by the conservative scholar, Donald Guthrie, the author of perhaps the most distinguished conservative introduction to the New Testament, who had this to say after examining in detail the various authorship hypotheses pertaining to Hebrews:

In the light of the preceding discussion, 1 an open verdict is clearly the safest course and in this the opinion of Origen can hardly be improved upon. It may not appeal to the mind to admit that a thinker of so profound a type should remain anonymous and yet, as A Nairne pointed out, the precision of a name would not much illuminate the background.2 Of greater importance is the situation which the epistle was intended to answer. (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Fourth Edition (revised), 1990, InterVarsity Press, p. 682)

On the epistle of James, conservative evangelical scholar, Arthur G. Patzia, finds 'attractive' the reconstruction according to which while 'much' of the material within James comes from the 'mid-forties', it circulated for 'a number of years before being put into its current form'. Patzia proceeds:

At some point an editor collected the sayings and discourses of James and circulated them as a general letter. The literary style, according to one commentator, is clearly "oral discourse, like the Greek diatribe, the synagogue homily, or a sermon."20 (Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon, 1995, InterVarsity Press, p. 96)

Therefore, James is not responsible for the finished form of the epistle and the identity of the proposed 'editor' is obviously unknown.

Patzia also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter and concludes (pp. 94-95):

Ralph Martin's suggestion that a disciple from the Petrine circle "has been at work in assembling and publishing, in his master's name, a testament of that teaching in response to the pressing needs in the church" seems a reasonable solution to the questions of composition.


The complex nature of the authorship of the Johannine literature is explained by Patzia as follows (p. 98):
Some scholars confidently affirm that the apostle John is the author of all the literature attributed to him and that it follows chronologically the sequence found in the New Testament. Others believe that an editor(s) from within the Johannine community utilized and reinterpreted traditions that originally came from the beloved disciple. In this case, the literature probably attained its final form in Ephesus some time after John's death near the end of the first century.29

Writing in another book, Patzia has this to say about the authorship of Hebrews:
Even though scholars continue to debate the authorship, date and destination of Hebrews, virtually everyone admits that it is an anonymous letter written either from Alexandria, Jerusalem or Rome. (The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership & Worship, 2001, InterVarsity Press, p. 137)

Leading conservative scholar I. H. Marshall denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and concludes:

. the PE belong to the period shortly after the death of Paul. They, especially 2 Tim, are based on authentic Pauline materials whose extent cannot now be traced precisely, and they may well have been produced in a group which included Timothy and Titus themselves. The stimulus came from the existence of the authentic letter behind 2 Tim, which was already beginning to face up to the problems of the opposition, and led to the composition of 1 Tim and Tit to deal more explicitly and fully with the problems caused by opposition and heresy in Ephesus and Crete. The letters were intended to give Pauline backing to Timothy and Titus . They are examples not of pseudonymity but of allonymity. Their composition was accordingly in no sense deceptive, in that it was known that these were fresh formulations of Pauline teaching to take account of the changing situation. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the origins of the letters were forgotten and they were assumed to be from Paul himself. (I. H. Marshall, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Pastoral Epistles, 2004, T & T Clarke, p. 92)

Regarding II Peter, Marshall writes in another book:

Until fresh arguments are brought forward, it therefore seems wisest to admit that we do not know who wrote this letter but to recognize that it claims to stand in the tradition associated with Peter.1 This means that for practical purposes we have yet another, semi-independent voice in the chorus of New Testament theology. (I. H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 670)

Conservative Christian scholar Mark D. Roberts, writing in his apologetic tract states:

So did the Gospel writers know Jesus personally? Mark and Luke did not. Matthew and John might have, but we can't be positive. Yet the reliability of the New Testament Gospels does not depend on who wrote them so much as on the nature and purpose of the writings themselves. (Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 2007, Crossway Books, p. 49)

According to Roberts (Ibid), 'it is possible' that the writers of Matthew and John 'were eyewitnesses of Jesus himself'. He concludes (Ibid):

There was a time when critical scholars seemed to discard this possibility energetically, almost glibly. But in recent years many have come to believe that the first and fourth Gospels reflect the memory and the perspective of Jesus' own disciples, both Matthew and John (or another Beloved Disciple, at any rate). Matthew and John may not have been the ones who finally put pen to papyrus, but they, their memory, and their authority stand behind the Gospels that bear their names.

This means that the ones responsible for the final form of Matthew and John, as we know them now, remain unknown.

Conclusion

Above we have cited and referred to a number of conservative evangelical scholars who regard various New Testament documents to be either anonymous or pseudonymous or partially accept certain authorship claims/traditions. Let it be made clear that our argument is not that the above scholars are right (or wrong) in their conclusions. Our aim was only to demonstrate that a variety of conservative scholars, all of whom are committed Christians with no axe to grind and who have no reason for being 'sceptical for the sake of being sceptical', have concluded - irrespective of the merits of their arguments - that there are anonymous and pseudonymous writings within the New Testament. They do not share Wood's startling view that with the exception of Hebrews - regarding the authorship of which Wood has a 'good idea'- 'we know who wrote every book of the New Testament.' On the contrary, there continues to be widespread disagreement and dispute among scholars on the authorship of a number of New Testament documents and widespread agreement and also consensus on the rejection of some traditional authorship claims for a number of New Testament writings.

Nor is it our argument that all conservative scholars share the above conclusions in totality. There are many conservative scholars who regard II Peter to be pseudonymous and some conservative scholars who endorse Petrine authorship, conservatives who deny Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and conservatives who endorse Pauline authorship, conservatives who regard the apostle Matthew to have authored the gospel under his name in its finished form and conservatives who completely deny this or accept Matthean authorship only partially etc. Conservative scholarship comes in various shades and with disagreements.

The interested reader is advised to visit a local library and spend some time going through New Testament introductions and commentaries authored specifically by conservative scholars, noting down all instances of their denials of traditional authorship claims. Such an exercise would undoubtedly substantially increase the length of the preceding section. What we have cited above is a minor sample of conservative scholarship.

Once we move outside the restricted realm of evangelical conservatism and consider mainstream and moderate New Testament scholarly views on the authorship question, we note much more uncertainty pertaining to the authorship of a number of writings (gospels, Pastoral Epistles, II Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Petrine Epistles, Johannine Epistles, Jude, James). The situation becomes overwhelming once we add to this the many writings in the Jewish Bible where our knowledge about the authors is either completely missing or very limited (and here too plenty of conservative scholars can be cited!).

In light of the above reality, it was absurd for Wood to proclaim 'we know who wrote every book of the New Testament.' 'We' most certainly do not know who wrote 'every' book of the New Testament even if Wood sincerely believes that he personally knows who wrote 'every' book of the New Testament. There would have been nothing wrong had Wood stated that he had personally come to conclude that he knew who wrote every book of the New Testament. His statement, however, conveys the utterly misleading impression as if there are no genuine scholarly doubts on the authorship of the various New Testament writings. The suggestion, as if the authorship issue has been long 'settled' among scholars, except for the rabid 'sceptical ones', is pure falsehood.

A problem equally, if not more, serious besides the authorship question is that of the historical reliability of the New Testament writings. Here virtually all scholars, whether liberal, moderate, and conservative, agree that there are errors, mistakes and historically unreliable details within the New Testament, albeit with continuing disagreements over their range and extent. The view that the Bible is 'inerrant' in such a way that it contains no conceivable error and mistake is rejected by all Christians, including conservatives, with the exception of a very few. To present an example, even though many conservative scholars happen to be more willing to attribute the fourth gospel, either fully or partially, to a disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him), it is generally acknowledged that the material therein is the result of later theological reflections, and interpretations and, therefore, should not be treated as a purely historical document giving us brute historical details about Jesus. For example, although I. H. Marshall writes,

I see no reason to deny the well-founded belief that this John, the son of Zebedee, had something to do with the origins of this Gospel. (I. H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 579)

Notice the conclusion he reaches after making a detailed comparison of John with the synoptic gospels (p. 593):

The Synoptic Gospels are probably much close to the ipissima verba of Jesus and to his teaching about the future, whereas the Johannine literature evidences a much more developed theology that reflects more fully the insights of early Christians in the period after the resurrection.

A number of conservative evangelical scholars have reached similar types of conclusions (sample of such views can be seen here. Or consider Richard Bauckham, who is often touted by a number of Christian apologists these days on account of one of his book (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) even though he does not regard the New Testament as an inerrant source).

It should be clear by now that the legitimate concerns Christians scholars commonly have pertaining to the authorship of a number of New Testament writings is very different from the type of massively inflated hyper-scepticism displayed by a few, who offer a blanket dismissal of all of the historical data in order to deny the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him). The two are in no way 'alike' or 'of the same level' and anyone who passes them off as being 'the same' is not only displaying remarkable ignorance but is also guilty of committing high deception.

If any Christian desires to deny the historical existence of Muhammed (peace be upon him), then he/she must be 'consistent' in their level of scepticism when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him). If consistency is to be maintained, then such a Christian would first have to say 'goodbye' to the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him) and only then worry about the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him).
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/wh...new_testament_

Well bring the text and let us see. But here we have the usual circular argument about corruption, one cannot use such an argument because to do so would mean you are in possession of the original else one cannot know what is or is not corrupted. What we have here is that the Qu'ran and the Bible differ, those differences are irreconcilable, and rather that simply accept that it is necessary it seems for Muslims to construct an impossible and irrational argument about corruption. One might say indeed, but can you prove it?

I believe that is what we have been doing all throughout and it is strange to me that when the Quran is offered you are angry about it, and if your bible is offered then you want to know the name of the corrupter.. I am asking you one last time do you have something to level against the allegations quoted directly from your bible that are at odds with each other?
Do you plan to offer some evidence of authenticity per your biblical content or are you going to keep asking for more only to ignore it because the evidence against what you allege authentic is so overwhelming that the most you can come up with are along the lines of 'cut and pastes' 'muddled' 'voluminous' or whatever other excuse to extricate yourself from rolling up your sleeves and coming up with a logical conclusion?

The sources you quoted are extensive but you are treating everything as if it is fact and these sources mix up fact, legend and apologetics all the time so they cannot be simply read. For example, Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh is obviously legend. Chumash is the Hebrew word for the first 5 book of Moses and many of your quotations simply repeat the Biblical account with a bit of embroidery. You can see what I mean from the following which appears to say Ishmael lived a very very long time but it just your cutting and pasting is muddled.

I don't treat anything from your bible as if a fact. I am asking you clearly to establish for us in a scholarly fashion (as per above) which parts you think we ought to deem 'fiction' and which are 'fact' it is Jewish literature from more than one source that state that Hagar is the daughter of the pharaoh only your bible alleges otherwise, but then again your bible is filled with funny other passages like 'only son' when he clearly didn't have an only son if it were Isaac that is being sacrificed and if 'only' then Ishmael was his only at the time of said sacrifice, we are keeping in mind that we have followed these events directly from the bible and Jewish literature, nothing Islamic has been used so far to establish the lack of textual integrity of the bible. I need to see you defend these direct passages from the bible one by one with something other than it is a cut and paste and it is muddled and it is clearly a legend.. what say you? you know you like to parade around your scholarship, it would sure be nice if you can put your money where your mouth is!

“We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation …Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world."

Similarly, we have nonsense such as "in the year 2047 from Creation" again showing it is legend not fact but interspersed with Biblical events such as Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried Abraham but how we end up from the story as proof that Isaac was not the first born I cannot say since the Biblical record is plain and the writer is muddled over the son of the flesh and what the Bible calls the son of the promise. Similarly, the Academy of Eber is just part of Jewish mythology and this is obvious when we read about sending Ishmael to the Academy of Eber in Jerusalem which it is doubtful even existed at that time.

How is this nonsense exactly aside from your assertion that it is.. It is stranger still because of greater antiquity if we go by the one trick you have up your sleeve to counter-act the facts of the matter!

all the best

Ismael and Isaac,Part 4

A- The significance of the story,and how it was misused and exaggerated:

To understand the matter ,let's visit the story of Abel and Cain


Quran

[5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous.


Bible

Genesis 4:1-8 Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? 7If you do right, won't you be accepted?


How such offering,was presented to the Lord? in the form of charity for the poor?
no it wasn't ..as there were none but the Adam family to need charity, neither if they offered it this way ,would get a clue of its acceptance...

so how it was accepted? It seems according to another verse in the Quran that it was accepted this way:

They (The Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

in other words ,according to the verse we have a clue that at least the sons of Adam practiced such kind of offering..

it was : X would offer something precious ,if it to be consumated with fire from heaven,means it was accepted by God then the offerer be assured from God that he is righteous ...
the concept was corrupted later and reversed , as Jews borrowed tha pagan concept of :
x would offer blood sacrifice to be washed from his sins !


Now let's visit the issue of Abraham and Ismael:
it is different from the offering mentioned in the story of Abel and Cain......
..
The sacrifice was not a work of charity ,neither seeking a clue whether God accepts the offerer as righteous or not but just simply a test of obedience…….
Christians ,in their never-ending quest for Old Testament future hints ,that may give them some Religious Legitimacy, would later stretch the meaning of the story beyond its limit, Imagining a father sacrificing his son as a like God the Father offering his Son on the cross.
That is a pathetic way of finding a future reference, the analogy is poor one
1-Isaac(if he really was the right person) was Abraham’s son ,Jesus is said by Christians to be God’s son but just saying it, doesn’t mean it so.
2- The idea of the sacrificing the son of Abraham was to test Abraham and his son’s obedience, if so who would test God and his son’s obedience?.
3- In the case of Jesus (according to christians)the sacrifice was performed and the sinners were saved, while the case of Abraham’s son ,he saved none ,the fact that he himself was saved by a sheep in his place….

That is not the first case christians ,in their search for the non existent,would twist the text of the Old Testament ,trying hopelessly finding a clues eg,prophecies to give them some Religious Legitimacy………….
But no wonder as the Pesher technique was common these days (and till our days)….. ,it is to get a meaning non intended by the text applying it to future issues not related…

the misue of the story mentioned, is the first key in our study, to know where christianity came from............

during the beginning of my initial study to the matter of christianity, I often wondered ,why the writers of the New testament believed in the concept of blood atonement?
at first I erred thinking they got it from paganism away from the old testament...

but soon I found out that they got it basically from the old testament....... beginning by the story of the test of obedience of Abraham passing by the animal sacrifice practiced by the jews ,then Isaiah 53 etc.....

The new testament should't be studied in isolation from the old testament.....

the old testament has most of the keys, showing why the new testament came such corrupted way..(details later)....


The story and its significance to muslims:

some muslims in modern times would suggest that the story have some future significance ..eg; claiming that the choice of Ismael to the test is a honor for him and his seed..... while the fact the choice of him simply because he was the only son available that time..... so don't go far beyond the meaning imitiating the zealous christians whose hearts precedes their heads..


peace

Prophet Jesus' First Miracle
Bible says:



To turn water into wine at the marraige feast at Cana JOHN 2:9
　
Quran says:

In the Holy Qur'an his first Miracle was to defend his mother, as an
infant, against the false accusations of his enemies.
　

"O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" But she pointed to the baby. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; (19: 28-30)
　
Here we see an incident where Mary brings the baby Jesus to her people, and they suspect her to have committed fornication for how else did she conceive a child when she is not married? To clear herself from this falsehood and to show that she has done nothing wrong she points to the baby Jesus, and miraculously he speaks, telling them that he is a servant of Allah and that he is a prophet. This is the first miracle of Jesus to us Muslims, unlike the Christian view which is that the first miracle that was recorded was him turning water into wine which itself is absurd and self contradictory as his own law prohibits wine
　
Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Leviticus 10:9)

Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1)

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. (Isaiah 28:7)
wh0redom and wine and new wine take away the heart. (Hosea 4:11)
　
Can u imagine how Jesus of the Bible can turns water into this poison of madness implying that he legalised wine thereby paving the way to create more havoc . It makes no sense at all ,the Bible is self condtradicting book, its plain and simple
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

?I keep asking you to level your allegations against the biblical content not the writer since it is directly quoted from your bible or Jewish text which you can back reference, do you think you can do that or are you at a loss as usual for anything useful to say? Forget about the obvious conclusion drawn by the writer, you reconcile for us the passages 'of antiquity' what say you?

You seem to have had a change of heart and writers are now not important to you. In your post 49 regarding Ishmael I answered fully. To summarise.
1. The claims that a rabbi altered the Bible story, that the Bible story is a fabrication, that it is a fraud and so on. NONE of these claims is supported with ANY evidence whatsoever so why did you post such an obviously poor document that in any scholarly setting would be treated as worthless?
2. The writer ONLY quotes from the Bible though he never makes clear which translation and never quotes or explained any context.
3. He claims wholesale Biblical corruption and at the same time uses exclusively Biblical quotations to make his point - no one with any integrity would do that and it is usually labelled tendentious

I have also written a reply to post 60 where Jewish writings are used and one therefore supposes that YOU regard all Jewish writings as fact and beyond question - is this the case or do you have some kind of method of establishing what is and is not true? One only has to look at say Talmudic writing to see that for example a Biblical verses or verses would be quoted and then surrounded with many many interpretations from the fanciful to the convincing so one cannot simply pick and choose as the whole idea is that one ends up with a wide ranging view of that scripture and how various scholars saw its meaning over time.

You wished for some scholarly discussion on Biblical authority. Shall we start with the creation story in Genesis, I selected this because of a recent book by Professor Andrew Parker, a respected scientist, called "The Genesis Enigma" ISBN 9780552 77528. The book shows clearly that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate right from the very start of the Universes. Clearly the writers of Genesis could not have known about biology or Physics so this is an astounding fact and it can be regarded as saying something very very powerful about the Biblical narrative as it simply could not have occurred by chance. The facts as presented by Professor Parker are undeniable so how do you respond to them?

Secondly, the book is interesting because at its beginning he speaks of his search for historical veracity and cited many examples. many place in Biblical narrative simply did not seem to existed but archaeology has gradually unearthed them. For example Lawrence and Woolly in 1914 discovered the Biblical Kadesh-Barnbea and Carchemish or in more recent times the Syro-Palestinian scholar Dr Michael Jursa discovered Babylonian tablets confirming the names of a Biblical character Nebo-Sarsechem and there are many other examples, indeed it is reported that there are as many as 10,000 sites in Iraq that are from Biblical times and these sites invariably support the Biblical narratives. In short there seem no scholarly reason to doubt Biblical accuracy. One final point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls a copper manuscript of Isaiah was found which was dated as many hundreds of years older than at that time any known copy and although there were differences they were totally insignificant and that is a testimony to the integrity of the text.

When you speak of corruption I don't think I have ever seen in this board or anywhere else a Muslim say what they mean by it but Biblical scholars when they uses this terms are not talking about wholesale changes but scribal errors, transpositions, spelling errors, minor insertion or omissions and so on. No one thinks that redactions were never made and for example the book of Isaiah is though by some scholars to have two different authors, one for the first part and one for the second but by the same token no one seriously argues that these books have been deliberately altered on an industrial. Let us look at one your entries: I should add that you copied (or perhaps you wrote it?) the whole entry in your post that starts with some Metzger quotes is 100% copied from www.call-to-monotheism.com so I guess you don't actually have and never read any of the books mentioned? (just for you information I don't use Google to track down copies but instead use software specially designed for the purpose)

The late Bruce Metzger made it clear in his apologetic introduction, The New Testament, it's background, growth, and content, 1985, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 97 that the apostle Matthew can scarcely be the final author of the gospel attributed to him. Regarding the fourth gospel, even though the conclusion that the author was John the son of Zebedee was "early and widespread", Metzger stated that it is clear that others were also involved in its composition and authentication. Metzger concluded: No simple solution to the problem of authorship is possible, but it is probable that the fourth Gospel preserves Palestinian reminiscences of Jesus' ministry.

This quote is about authorship not whether it is God's word or not. Earlier you said authors don't matter and its content we should be concerned about so what point are you making? One might also note that there is a 2003 edition of this book and Metzger also wrote "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" and if you take the trouble to read it as I have done you will see what is meant by corruption, how it is detected and how corrected. If this idea of authorship is so troublesome to you then ask yourself who wrote the Qu'ran and then seek material evidence for that author and see where that take you.

I don't treat anything from your bible as if a fact.

This is an odd position as one supposes that even when it agrees with the Qu'ran you still treat it as suspect but then again you logic is invariably flawed?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

You seem to have had a change of heart and writers are now not important to you. In your post 49 regarding Ishmael I answered fully. To summarise.
1. The claims that a rabbi altered the Bible story, that the Bible story is a fabrication, that it is a fraud and so on. NONE of these claims is supported with ANY evidence whatsoever so why did you post such an obviously poor document that in any scholarly setting would be treated as worthless?

I have had no change of heart, and I am still waiting for you to counteract comments made by staunch christian conservatives as per my last post regarding the validity, authorship and integrity of your bible. As for post number 49 whatever conclusion the 'writer' has made were a direct result of biblical quotes which again you can refer back to (as to which bible) well how sad that you suggest this book comes from 'god' and yet there seems to be no consensus as to which one your god would want you to focus on.. I suggest you explain to us why they are so at odds and why the age Abraham, Ishmael or even Issac is so discrepant as to make the story no more in totality but fable at best by an unskilled scribe?!

2. The writer ONLY quotes from the Bible though he never makes clear which translation and never quotes or explained any context.
3. He claims wholesale Biblical corruption and at the same time uses exclusively Biblical quotations to make his point - no one with any integrity would do that and it is usually labelled tendentious

Isn't the whole point of pointing out a corruption is to use the text from whence it came? you constantly contradict yourself-- what difference does it make which 'translation' when you don't even know which language your god spoke? what are we translating from? was your god Grecian or west asian?

I have also written a reply to post 60 where Jewish writings are used and one therefore supposes that YOU regard all Jewish writings as fact and beyond question - is this the case or do you have some kind of method of establishing what is and is not true? One only has to look at say Talmudic writing to see that for example a Biblical verses or verses would be quoted and then surrounded with many many interpretations from the fanciful to the convincing so one cannot simply pick and choose as the whole idea is that one ends up with a wide ranging view of that scripture and how various scholars saw its meaning over time.

Your writing to post 60 is that it doesn't agree with your bible no more no less. I have given three separate sources that attest to the same lineage (which by the way isn't an issue since a child with a 'maid' or a 'princess' doesn't change the laws of inheritance of the first born male according to the Torah, so either way your protests again come back and bite you!

You wished for some scholarly discussion on Biblical authority. Shall we start with the creation story in Genesis, I selected this because of a recent book by Professor Andrew Parker, a respected scientist, called "The Genesis Enigma" ISBN 9780552 77528. The book shows clearly that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate right from the very start of the Universes. Clearly the writers of Genesis could not have known about biology or Physics so this is an astounding fact and it can be regarded as saying something very very powerful about the Biblical narrative as it simply could not have occurred by chance. The facts as presented by Professor Parker are undeniable so how do you respond to them?

This is funny, were you not you not the guy who recently commented that Adam and Eve and the story of creation isn't scientifically sound?

Secondly, the book is interesting because at its beginning he speaks of his search for historical veracity and cited many examples. many place in Biblical narrative simply did not seem to existed but archaeology has gradually unearthed them. For example Lawrence and Woolly in 1914 discovered the Biblical Kadesh-Barnbea and Carchemish or in more recent times the Syro-Palestinian scholar Dr Michael Jursa discovered Babylonian tablets confirming the names of a Biblical character Nebo-Sarsechem and there are many other examples, indeed it is reported that there are as many as 10,000 sites in Iraq that are from Biblical times and these sites invariably support the Biblical narratives. In short there seem no scholarly reason to doubt Biblical accuracy. One final point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls a copper manuscript of Isaiah was found which was dated as many hundreds of years older than at that time any known copy and although there were differences they were totally insignificant and that is a testimony to the integrity of the text.

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, to your own previous comments on the validity of the story of creation, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the staunch conservative biblical scholars I have introduced in my last post which discuss at length the lack of proper authorship and errors in your bible.. you can't really say they are biased Muslims scholars, so why do you deflect away from what I have written by introducing another book that has no connection to the subject matter at hand!

When you speak of corruption I don't think I have ever seen in this board or anywhere else a Muslim say what they mean by it but Biblical scholars when they uses this terms are not talking about wholesale changes but scribal errors, transpositions, spelling errors, minor insertion or omissions and so on. No one thinks that redactions were never made and for example the book of Isaiah is though by some scholars to have two different authors, one for the first part and one for the second but by the same token no one seriously argues that these books have been deliberately altered on an industrial. Let us look at one your entries:

This quote is about authorship not whether it is God's word or not. Earlier you said authors don't matter and its content we should be concerned about so what point are you making? One might also note that there is a 2003 edition of this book and Metzger also wrote "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" and if you take the trouble to read it as I have done you will see what is meant by corruption, how it is detected and how corrected. If this idea of authorship is so troublesome to you then ask yourself who wrote the Qu'ran and then seek material evidence for that author and see where that take you.

commentary based on direct quotes from a book that is supposed to be the 'unerring word of god' differs greatly from errors from THE alleged book of god. One can dismiss the first as point of view based though it is based what is plainly written (and you are yet in a logical concise matter show us why one shouldn't draw said conclusions based on what is written) the other leaves a huge gap for doubt as to what to take and what to bin from this book where your eternal soul hinges on its veracity. I have read enough about and by Metzger.. question remains though beyond all the smoke and mirror, words of protest, ISBN of books of no relevance, when exactly will you start addressing the actual subject at hand so that what you write has some semblance of credibility and not the mere emotive outburst of a man whose alleged scholarship is but self-professed!

before you protest too much that the Quran differs from your bible, after your repeated and yet to be proven surmises that the Quran copies from the bible in contradiction, try to establish proper scholarship, authorship cogency and validity of your bible, beyond terms like 'it is older'

This is an odd position as one supposes that even when it agrees with the Qu'ran you still treat it as suspect but then again you logic is invariably flawed?

Why is that? The only way we can validate if any stories in your bible have any credence is whether or not they agree with other independent sources. On its own it can't stand obviously!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

I have had no change of heart, and I am still waiting for you to counteract comments made by staunch christian conservatives as per my last post regarding the validity, authorship and integrity of your bible. As for post number 49 whatever conclusion the 'writer' has made were a direct result of biblical quotes which again you can refer back to (as to which bible) well how sad that you suggest this book comes from 'god' and yet there seems to be no consensus as to which one your god would want you to focus on.. I suggest you explain to us why they are so at odds and why the age Abraham, Ishmael or even Issac is so discrepant as to make the story no more in totality but fable at best by an unskilled scribe?!

I will reply to this post in several sections as so far there is no common ground and you seem unable to even agree on normal scholarly/academic conventions. With regard to you post 49 which is about Isaac and Ishmael.

1. Firstly, the writer never makes plain what he is trying to show but it seems to be that Abraham lineage should be traced through Ishmael, hence Islam is the recipient of the promise but he offers no proof whatsoever other than his own clearly tendentious view and opinion of the Bible. His arguments if you can call them that rest on what he calls corrupted material it follows the only people who would take his writing seriously are denialists, those who want history to be as they would like it.

2. There is no issues at all in saying Ishmael was the first born son. However, God's promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled through Isaac. Indeed in the Biblical record it is not at all unusual to find the first born bypassed in favour of someone else - notable examples are Jacob, Joseph and Solomon.

3. There is no doubt at all that Jewish history runs through Abraham and Isaac to their children. One might say here the silly idea suggesting the Bible got the names mixed up hardly implies that all of Jewish history is a fabrication.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

This is funny, were you not you not the guy who recently commented that Adam and Eve and the story of creation isn't scientifically sound?

You would do well to take the trouble to read what people write. My views were that Adam and Eve is just a story, an analogy, it is not a literal account of creation but that does NOT mean I think Genesis is unscientific. Surely even to YOU it is obvious that the writer of Genesis did not have words to describe gravity, tectonic plates, enzymes, molecules, DNA, photosynthesis, amino acids, genes, pre-biotic soups, mitocondria, geological time and so on. What Professor Parker in the book I quoted has show however is that the steps mentioned in the Biblical story exactly match science. Professor Parker has no axe to grind and as far as I can see he is an independent and respected scientist. It's now up to you or indeed any one to examine Professor Parker's analysis and come to their own conclusion.

I would add here that you asked for evidence and I offered three independent items, one scientific, one historical and one textual. If you wish to dismiss them without a thought that is a matter for you, but such dismissal speaks volumes regarding your interest in truth

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I will reply to this post in several sections as so far there is no common ground and you seem unable to even agree on normal scholarly/academic conventions. With regard to you post 49 which is about Isaac and Ishmael.

What difference does it make if I or any normal, logical human being wrote post number 49.. you repeatedly deflect away from the actual biblical content by concentrating on the conclusion of the writer. It doesn't matter if I, or sadam hussein wrote it. What matters is that it is easy for anyone sitting down with your bible to look at these verses in order and come up with the same conclusion .. in fact it is the conclusion anyone without their head in the sand will come up with.
Again, because this is tedious at this stage, you either exonerate your biblical content or you cease writing here all together, I have better things to do with my life than to repeat my reply with each subsequent post!

1. Firstly, the writer never makes plain what he is trying to show but it seems to be that Abraham lineage should be traced through Ishmael, hence Islam is the recipient of the promise but he offers no proof whatsoever other than his own clearly tendentious view and opinion of the Bible. His arguments if you can call them that rest on what he calls corrupted material it follows the only people who would take his writing seriously are denialists, those who want history to be as they would like it.

I am not sure what other evidence you want? his comments are excerpted 'biblically', historically, If one researches the Ancient Hebrew laws, the right of decent or
inheritance is based on the eldest son, no matter whom the mother is, and the eldest in fact gets the double portion. You really should familiarize yourself with the religion you pad the other half of your 'NT' with!

2. There is no issues at all in saying Ishmael was the first born son. However, God's promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled through Isaac. Indeed in the Biblical record it is not at all unusual to find the first born bypassed in favour of someone else - notable examples are Jacob, Joseph and Solomon.

See previous reply. Not only is the first born favored but gets double the portions:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/2...ewish-law.html

3. There is no doubt at all that Jewish history runs through Abraham and Isaac to their children. One might say here the silly idea suggesting the Bible got the names mixed up hardly implies that all of Jewish history is a fabrication.

And for your sake and for the sake of both intellectual honesty and so-called scholarship that you can do better than dismissing with a word like 'silly'

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Your thinking has no logic in it. If one is only in possession of a supposedly corrupted text then there is no way to prove anything since there is nothing with which to compare it. It does not matter if say historical details are in error or there is internal contradiction because these may well have been in the so called original. The only way to show corruption is to see an earlier, or original or find a secondary source or you can regard it as a fraud by finding the author and exposing his motives. The writer in post 49 did none of this and neither have you. The point about knowing the source of his Biblical quotations is obvious but as you seem unaware of them I will explain that a reader may wish to check for accuracy and or read the context. .

That is an amusing statement, considering all the crap you peddled about the integrity of the Quran never producing another copy of where one can compare the so-called errors. Not at all the case for christianity for not only have I shown internal errors from your bibles themselves, you have chosen to ignore them time and again, so perhaps we should share another sample let's deal with chronological errors first!

15 Clear Chronological Contradictions In The Bible!

By
Karim
(He is a new convert to Islam, from the Netherlands)

Since the bible is written by different mystery persons, it is of course no surprise to see clear contradictions in the scripture. One of these clear contradictions are the ‘chronological contradictions in the bible stories’ . The biblical scholar, Marcello Craveri, provided a thoroughly researched exposition of these inconsistencies by using a chart entitled Correlation of the Gospels. Although the number available are considerably in excess of what can be published in BE, the following examples are particularly flagrant and easily verified.

1: In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then the pinnacle.

2: In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later cleansed the temple.

3: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

4: In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).

5: In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

6: In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).

7: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later caused the devils to enter the swine (Mark 5:1-13).

8: In Luke 3:19-20 John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

9: In Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Mark 4:35-40 the storm was calmed and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

10: In Luke 5:27-32 Levi (Matthew) was called and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Matt. 8:18-27 the storm was calmed and later Levi was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

11: In Matt. 8:14-15 Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Matt. 14:3-5), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39).
12: In Matthew 21:1-11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and later purified the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16), while in John 2:13-25 and 3:1-12 he purified the Temple and later entered Jerusalem (John 12:12-16).

13: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later paid tribute to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11-14), while in Luke 7:24-28 Jesus paid tribute to John the Baptist and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

14: In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said after supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark l4:18 Jesus made this statement during supper.

15: And lastly, in Matt. 8:23-27 Jesus calmed the storm and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41).

Although only 15 examples of chronological contradictions were given, literally scores are available. Their very existence accounts for the fact that no one has ever been able to write one long continuous narrative encompassing all four gospels. It can't be done without taking liberties with the text by adding and subtracting as expediency dictates in direct defiance of Rev. 22. The common defense that these events occurred more than once is without merit since many of them are unique. Therefor the bible is not gods word, since gods word has to be perfect and cannot contain many chronological contradictions, since only one chronological order can be right, the other has to be wrong.


other contradictions:
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

• Eight hundred thousand(2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

• Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

• Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
• Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

• Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
• Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

• Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
• Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

• Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
• Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

• Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
• Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

• After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
• Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

• Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
• Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

• One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
• Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

• Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
• Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

13. In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

• Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
• Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

• Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
• Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

• Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
• Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

• Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
• Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

• Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
• Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

• One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
• Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

19. How many were the children of Adin?

• Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
• Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
• Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
• One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

• 29,818 (Ezra)
• 31,089 (Nehemiah)

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

• Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
• Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

• Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
• Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

• Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
• No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

• Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
• Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

• Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
• Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

• Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
• Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

• Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
• Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

• Joram (Matthew 1:8)
• Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

• Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
• Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

32. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

• Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
• But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

33. Who was the father of Shelah?

• Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
• Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

34. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

• Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
• No (John 1:19-21)

35. Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

• Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
• No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

• One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
• Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.

37. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

• By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
• His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

38. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

• By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
• On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

39. When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

• Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.
• No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.

40. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

• Yes (Mark 6:8)
• No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

41. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

• Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
• No (Luke 9:9)

42. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

• Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
• No (John 1:32,33)

43. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

• Yes (John 1:32, 33)
• No (Matthew 11:2)

44. According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

• If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
• Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

• Yes (Matthew 21:12)
• No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17)

46. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

• Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
• No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)

47. Did Judas kiss Jesus?

• Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
• No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

48. What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

• The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:38)
• Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

49. Did Jesus bear his own cross?

• Yes (John 19:17)
• No (Matthew 27:31-32)

50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

• Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
• No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

51. Did Jesus say anything secretly?

• No. I have said nothing secretly (John 18:20)
• Yes. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him Why do you speak to them in parables? He said, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)

52. Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

• On the cross (Mark 15:23)
• In Pilates court (John 19:14)

53. The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

• Yes (Mark 15:32)
• No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

• Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)
• No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17)

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

• Yes (Acts9:7)
• No (Acts22:9)

56. When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

• Yes (Acts 26:14)
• No (Acts 9:7)

57. Did the voice spell out on the spot what Pauls duties were to be?

• Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
• No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9:7;22: 10)

58. When the Israelites dwelt in ****tin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?

• Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)
• Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)

59. How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?

• Seventy souls (Genesis 4 & 27)
• Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)

60. What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

• He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
• He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)

61. How did Judas die?

• After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
• After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?

• Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
• Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

63. Who is a ransom for whom?

• The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... (I Timothy 2:5-6)
• The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright (Proverbs 21:18)

64. Is the law of Moses useful?

• Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)
• No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

65. What was the exact wording on the cross?

• This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
• The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
• This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
• Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

• Yes (Matthew 14:5)
• No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

67. Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?

• Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)
• Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Lukes gospel (Luke 6:12-16)

68. Jesus saw a man sitat the tax collectors office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?

• Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
• Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?

• After (Mark 14:12-17)
• Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilates judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)

70. Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?

• Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
• No. (John 12:27)

71. In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did he move away from his disciples to pray?

• Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42)
• One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46)

72. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer?

• Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:3 9)
• Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42)

73. What did the centurion say when Jesus dies?

• Certainly this man was innocent (Luke 23:47)
• Truly this man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)

74. When Jesus said My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me ? in what language did he speak?

• Hebrew: the words are Eloi, Eloi ..(Matthew 27:46)
• Aramaic: the words are Eloi, Eloi .. (Mark 15:34)

75. According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?

• Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! (Luke 23:46)
• "It is finished" (John 19:30)

76. When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?

• Yes (Matthew 8:5)
• No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

77.

• Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17)
• Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)

78.

• God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3)
• Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16)

79. Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?

• No (John 3:13)
• Yes. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11)

80. Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

• Abiathar (Mark 2:26)
• Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)

81. Was Jesus body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs?

• Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40)
• No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices so that they may go and anoint him [Jesus) (Mark 16: 1)

82. When did the women buy the spices?

• After the Sabbath was past (Mark 16:1)
• Before the Sabbath. The women prepared spices and ointments. Then, on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)

83. At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?

• Toward the dawn (Matthew 28: 1)
• When the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)

84. What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?

• To anoint Jesus body with spices (Mark 16: 1; Luke 23:55 to 24: 1)
• To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28: 1)
• For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the Sabbath (John 20: 1)

85. A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?

• They saw that the stone was Rolled back (Mark 16:4) They found the stone rolled away from the tomb (Luke 24:2) They saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb (John 20:1)
• As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6)

86. Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus body?

• Yes. A young man in a white robe (Mark 16:5). Two men ... in dazzling apparel later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote)
• No. Mary met no one and returned saying, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him (John 20:2)

87. When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?

• Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9)
• On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him Teacher. Jesus said to her, Do not hold me... (John 20:11 to 17)

88. What was Jesus instruction for his disciples?

• Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me (Matthew 2 8: 10)
• Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17)

89. When did the disciples return to Galilee?

• Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee some doubted (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist
• After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:3 3). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them during forty days (Acts 1:3), and charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise ... (Acts 1:4)

90. To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?

• To the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28)
• To Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh (Genesis 37:36)

91. Who brought Joseph to Egypt?

• The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then took Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28)
• The Midianites had sold him in Egypt (Genesis 37:36)
• Joseph said to his brothers I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt (Genesis 45:4)

92. Does God change his mind?

• Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
• No. God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent (I Samuel 15:29)

Yes. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
i. The Lord was sorry that he made man (Genesis 6:6)
I am sorry that I have made them (Genesis 6:7)
ii. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people (Exodus 32:14).
iii. (Lots of other such references).
93. The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the magicians did the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:

• Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21)
• The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

94. Who killed Goliath?

• David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
• Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

95. Who killed Saul?

• Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6)
• An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16)

96. Does every man sin?

• Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
• No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

97. Who will bear whose burden?

• Bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)
• Each man will have to bear his own load (Galatians 6:5)

98. How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?

• Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
• Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

99. Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

• After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
• Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

100. Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?

• Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
• No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

101. When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?

• They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
• They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)
• 
  

No textual integrity according to staunch conservative christian scholars as I have demonstrated in the previous page, no chronological integrity to the events. anonymous mysterious authors, absurd contents of scatology and inappropriate sexuality, and you expect me to subscribe to your brand of 'logic' because you used the word 'silly' or through repeated badgering? I have to tell you thread after thread your credibility dwindles yet you persist to hammer in 'scholarship' and 'research' --pls. give yourself and all of us a break.. if you want to subscribe to the mangod, self-immolating, ineffectual apostles, dubious scribes, self-proclaimed apostles type religion where god wrestles and loses and god dies be my guest. But don't impose on us that the text is valid or has anything to do with God the originator. BTW I have also noticed how after you've given me an ISBN for a book about the historical accuracy of the story of Genesis long after you've and with utter vehemence proclaimed that the story is not scientifically accurate and that Adam and Eve are a Euphemism of some cesspool from whence life began that you have since abandoned that portion of your testimony, well along with many others along the way.. Just letting you know, that ignoring things doesn't make them go away.. it merely goes in the archives of things counted against any credibility you may have wanted to establish for your person!


all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

As I said earlier you asked for independent evidence: scientific, historical and textual. Your copied posts from books you have never read are largely about authorship not content. Authorship of Biblical books has been discussed for centuries so there is nothing new here. Presumably, you point is that since an author is unknown or may be in doubt everything else is but few if any Biblical scholar would take that view preferring to trust the content instead - which only a few posts ago you were claiming was the correct thing to do. I don't need to say to say they are biased Muslim scholars as every time I pick up a commentary I can read about who was or was not the author. What is your point and presumably if the author is know you by implication will accept the content as authoritative - no I doubt it as usual you position is one of a cherry picker.

I guess I'll leave it to more discerning reader to go over the entire contents I have presented to see if they echo your needs to complete satisfaction before they conclude what it is that 'I presume' because you are at this stage extremely hopeless and nothing will be deemed to your satisfaction especially when everything you believe in has been reduced to contradictory fables.. rather than this tit for tat let the OP finish his thread in the manner he introduced without your incessant attempts to be a gadfly because you dislike the contents presented and would like to throw your usual tantrums while exempting yourself from substance!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

commentary based on direct quotes from a book that is supposed to be the 'unerring word of god' differs greatly from errors from THE alleged book of god. One can dismiss the first as point of view based though it is based what is plainly written (and you are yet in a logical concise matter show us why one shouldn't draw said conclusions based on what is written) the other leaves a huge gap for doubt as to what to take and what to bin from this book where your eternal soul hinges on its veracity. I have read enough about and by Metzger.. question remains though beyond all the smoke and mirror, words of protest, ISBN of books of no relevance, when exactly will you start addressing the actual subject at hand so that what you write has some semblance of credibility and not the mere emotive outburst of a man whose alleged scholarship is but self-professed!

Well this is mostly incoherent but if we go back to the post on Isaac and Ishmael all that seems to be proved is that Ishmael is older and since we already knew that from the Biblical account we gained nothing. After that is is just opinion nothing more and must be seen in that light. I am happy to address the subject at had based on your posts, all 25,000 words of them.

before you protest too much that the Quran differs from your bible, after your repeated and yet to be proven surmises that the Quran copies from the bible in contradiction, try to establish proper scholarship, authorship cogency and validity of your bible, beyond terms like 'it is older'

The Qu'ran does differ from the Bible and on occasion it agrees with the Bible and that is how it is. I have offered three bits of independent evidence for Bible integrity that are I think unquestionable. Now we wander into authorship and as I said before at least for the Bible there is material evidence for authorship but what about authorship for the Qu'ran of course you can say it was God but there cannot be any material evidence to that. For me I am just happy to accept there are two books and in my view the evidence and content make me heavily in favour of the Bible. You must reach your own conclusion but at least do it out of honest conviction.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Well this is mostly incoherent but if we go back to the post on Isaac and Ishmael all that seems to be proved is that Ishmael is older and since we already knew that from the Biblical account we gained nothing. After that is is just opinion nothing more and must be seen in that light. I am happy to address the subject at had based on your posts, all 25,000 words of them.

Perhaps if you read all '25000' words you'd learn something and in general try that before complaining, because a complaint is no substitute for a proper refutation!

The Qu'ran does differ from the Bible and on occasion it agrees with the Bible and that is how it is. I have offered three bits of independent evidence for Bible integrity that are I think unquestionable. Now we wander into authorship and as I said before at least for the Bible there is material evidence for authorship but what about authorship for the Qu'ran of course you can say it was God but there cannot be any material evidence to that. For me I am just happy to accept there are two books and in my view the evidence and content make me heavily in favour of the Bible. You must reach your own conclusion but at least do it out of honest conviction.

What bits have you offered to the integrity of the bible, if your own conservative biblical scholars have no clue who authored it? further did the hundreds upon hundreds of internal contradictions and chronological blebs presented above not enough to establish that it is a piece of man/made fable? that is if I am to forgo the tizzy of a basic tenet which is a dying mangod sent to eat sins.. 'Love that evidence for the bible' you must truly be in denial or simply unable to read!

good luck with all that!