Thank you for your time :)

To be fair, neither did I until I decided to do some research on this matter.

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

I thought I answered these question already. I said men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I think you mean to say that this answer doesn't satisfy you. I can understand that, but don't say I didn't answer you. Why is that important who wrote it? The point is not who wrote it. The point is whether God said it or not. After all how can one prove ones faith. It is like trying to prove to an atheist that God exists? Faith is all the evidence Christians have. It 's all each of us have. You haven't ofended me. Are you ofended?

you're still avoiding the question, you say, "men inspired by the Holy Spirit". i don't believe that is true at all. so i want to know the identities of these men. if you don't know who they are, you cannot make the case that "they" were "inspired by the holy spirit" because you don't know who "they" are. so please tell me who, specifically, wrote Hebrews.

You are responding to a post that wasn't really direct at you, but of course you can comment about it, but don't take up an offense for someone else. I don't expect you to PM me, but you are always welcome to do so.

my bad. i assumed what you sent me was stuff that already posted.

I do, I do, I do! I said that is what I do originally; so, why are you quoting my own words back to me if you are not trying to imply it is what I don't do??? If I can't get you to believe my personal testimony or things about me, how shall I convince you the Bible is God's word?

you have to examine the Bible to see if there is any evidence of it's truth. you start by figuring out who wrote the words and when they did so.

Every good point. Can you plz send me the link that explains the thing about what Muhammad said in the Al tabira? Did or didn't he say that in your own words as well? thanks!Here it is again:

"“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)

Prophets don't lie about God.

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die."
~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)^[1]

You want prove of the Bible's authenticity. This post is all I have at this time:

So this forum is on compartive religion. In the record of the Qur’an and the Bible we see some similarities and disagreements. Christian scholars say that though people have made corrupt translations of the Bible, the true Bible meaning has have always been available, and it has been preserved reliably with no significant errors. If someone did hypothetically corrupt all Bibles in Middle Ages as Muslims say, we could simply change it back. We know the original words because of the following reasons:


i didn't say the Bible was corrupted in the middle ages. i believe that none of the Gospels date from the time of Jesus, so each contains corruption.

1. We have manuscripts of the New Testament dated c.127 A.D, c.150 A.D., and c.200 A.D., as well as recently released copies with the Dead Sea Scrolls dated before 100 A.D. You ask who wrote it? I don't know, but that doesn't stop me from believing.

you have bits and pieces of manuscripts, not manuscripts.

2. We have 10,000 other manuscripts of the New Testament to compare. Scribal errors did occur, but with 10,000 manuscripts, we can track these errors. The evidence would be weaker, not stronger, if there had been a "Christian ‘Uthman" to burn them. Why would someone burn what is Allah's word if they didn't think it was corrupted? And if it were corrupted, how do you know the same corrupted verses didn't get put back in? If not corrupted why burn any of it. Very valuable documents were burned, why??????????

when it comes to your manuscripts, no 2 agree.

3. The early church writers (from 97/98 A.D. to 325 A.D.) referred to every single verse in the New Testament except around 17.

after 300 years, they still didn't know them all!?

4. We have copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls of almost all of the Old Testament dated at the time of Christ, and Christ’s use of Old Testament quotes. I don't care who wrote it. God preserved and allow it do be documented as His word or he would have interviened.

the only near complete scroll in the dead sea scrolls is Isaiah.

5. We have God’s promise that He will watch over and preserve His word, and that He will not let His followers be led astray. -Isa 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Mt 24:35
6. As far as the Bible is concerned, Christian scholars are very keen to examine all the evidence and be as precise as possible in what the original wording was.

who, specifically wrote: Isaiah [each of the 3 parts], 1 Peter and Matthew?

Christians and all seekers of truth should welcome questioning the reliability of today’s Bible. But rather than asking, "what is its reliability", one should also ask as I mentioned "what its reliability is being compared to."


compare it's reliability to the Qur'an


Now PLZ answer these:
Do you believe man's power to corrupt God's word is greater than God power to preserve it? Do you believe God would allow His people to be without an uncorrupted version of His word for thousands of years until prophet Muhammad can come and set the record straight for all?

God had to allow the OT and NT to become corrupted, because it is.

And of course let us not forget the the prophet Joseph Smith who came to set the record straight for all mankind from what he received from angelic messengers? Mormons will tell us that Christianity & Islam has it all wrong and that the true word is the Book of Mormon.
I tell Mormons that come to me door that Joseph Smith doesn't pass the test of prophethood. A prophet must be clearly and unequivocally confirmed by preceeding prophets and or prophecy and not with something that has to be ambigously inferred. A prophet should never contradict the previous Scriptures. A prophet should give a prophecy that doesn't involve a 50% chance it could happen or he should do some miracle such as turn water to wine or rise the dead or heal the blind; Finally, a prophet should know the name of God

a link for you:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...n-history.html

we can discuss what the experts say.

an interesting debate for you. listen the the things that Bart Ehrman says [cuz you'll hear me say them]:

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

It seems that I made an error and that you are not 'Brother Andrew' as I first thought. I didn't read any additional messages where you may have explained that. It also seems that you made the mistake of copying too much of what someone else wrote that you did not intend to send to me. This portion of your message in red used 'Koran' whereas you use 'Quran'. Though this clarifies the situation, it also shows where you have gotten your Islamic information. It is better that you are now trying to communicate directly with Muslims. I hope that you can overcome your bias and evaluate what is written impartially. I apologize and ask you to forgive me for my mistake.

To answer your question, I converted to Islam 30 years ago. I and my wife are the only Muslims in our entire families.

Oh, no problem. I am glad you now realize that I am not brother Andrew. I am glad you were able to verify looking at your PMs from me that what I said was sincere. I had no idea there were false Hadiths out there. I thought they were reliable and this was causing me confusion about Islam, but if Muhammad never said what was recorded in that Hadith than discussing or bringing it up is moot.

I am a little nervous now to bring up other troubling things I read not being sure if it is authentic or not about Islam. Such as is it true that Muhammad got mad because people asked too many questions like me lol. "The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad's reaction to hostile questioners.) Is this true or not?"

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

Oh, no problem. I am glad you now realize that I am not brother Andrew. I am glad you were able to verify looking at your PMs from me that what I said was sincere.

Sincere - free from dissimulation. Dissimulation - to hide under false appearance. No, you have not pretended to be other than someone who wants to expose Islam as a false religion akin to Mormonism. You obviously came here with a lot of preconceived ideas about Islam that apparently were derived from Christian sources that have striven to 'dig up dirt' on and to slander Islam. You are honest in that you lay out your questions and seem willing to read the answers. I am rather sensitive to attacks on Islam due to experiences in my life including listening to a 2-hour diatribe by Usama Dakdok, "Revealing the Truth about Islam" presented in the very country church that I grew up in.

Such as is it true that Muhammad got mad because people asked too many questions like me lol. "The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad's reaction to hostile questioners.) Is this true or not?"

It is all in your objective or intention. If you are wanting to ask questions regarding what you have heard or read that presented Islam in a bad light and you want to verify if it was true and to get the Muslim perspective, then I hope you will find us more patient than we have been. From my perspective a reliable source for Islamic information is searchtruth.com where you can do a word search in the Quran or in the hadith. As far as the actual hadith you seem to have quoted, I found this that was similar, Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A man asked the Prophet about the picking up of a "Luqata" (fallen lost thing). The Prophet replied, "Recognize and remember its tying material and its container, and make public announcement (about it) for one year, then utilize it but give it to its owner if he comes." Then the person asked about the lost camel. On that, the Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his Face became red and he said, "You have no concern with it as it has its water container, and its feet and it will reach water, and eat (the leaves) of trees till its owner finds it." The man then asked about the lost sheep. The Prophet replied, "It is either for you, for your brother (another person) or for the wolf." (Book #3, Hadith #91)

and

Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet was asked about things which he did not like, but when the questioners insisted, the Prophet got angry. He then said to the people, "Ask me anything you like." A man asked, "Who is my father?" The Prophet replied, "Your father is Hudhafa." Then another man got up and said, "Who is my father, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "Your father is Salim, Maula (the freed slave) of Shaiba." So when 'Umar saw that (the anger) on the face of the Prophet he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We repent to Allah (Our offending you)." (Book #3, Hadith #92)

Do you have a problem with Prophet Muhammad (saaws) becoming angry or impatient with incessant questioning over trivial matters? He was a human being like you and I, but with a much better character. He was fully human with emotions of grief, happiness, anger, etc. Allah (swt) even corrected him in Surah 'He Frowned' (Abasa) #80 for turning away from the blind man and giving his attention to the rich and powerful man.

The other hadith you mentioned is similar to:

Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: The Prophet said, "Allah has forbidden for you, (1) to be undutiful to your mothers, (2) to bury your daughters alive, (3) to not to pay the rights of the others (e.g. charity, etc.) and (4) to beg of men (begging). And Allah has hated for you (1) vain, useless talk, or that you talk too much about others, (2) to ask too many questions, (in disputed religious matters) and (3) to waste the wealth (by extravagance). (Book #41, Hadith #591)

This hadith reminds me of the passage in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:67 And when Moses said unto his people: Lo! Allah commandeth you that you sacrifice a cow, they said: Do you make game (fun) of us? He answered: Allah forbid that I should be among the foolish! They said: Pray for us unto your Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He said, Verily she is a cow neither with calf nor immature; (she is) between the two conditions; so do that which you are commanded. They said: Pray for us unto your Lord that He make clear to us of what colour she is. (Moses) answered: Lo! He said: Verily she is a yellow cow. Bright is her colour, gladdening beholders. They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright. (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plowed not the soil nor watered the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now you bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not.

Could you not sense the impatience building in Moses with the continuing questioning on details as opposed to the people simply going out and doing what they were instructed to do? A similar situation is that the asking of questions to the Prophet about small details makes the answer a duty to be followed by later generations; whereas, the leaving questions unasked would leave open some things to a persons own conscious. If you know anything about Islam, you will know that there are plenty of guidelines for our lives in following the Sunnah of Muhammad (saaws). I am sure you see that as legalism to the extreme, but Islam is a way of life in addition to a religion in the traditional sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Sincere - free from dissimulation. Dissimulation - to hide under false appearance. No, you have not pretended to be other than someone who wants to expose Islam as a false religion akin to Mormonism. You obviously came here with a lot of preconceived ideas about Islam that apparently were derived from Christian sources that have striven to 'dig up dirt' on and to slander Islam. You are honest in that you lay out your questions and seem willing to read the answers. I am rather sensitive to attacks on Islam due to experiences in my life including listening to a 2-hour diatribe by Usama Dakdok, "Revealing the Truth about Islam" presented in the very country church that I grew up in.

first you apologize and then you take it back. You do confuse me. This is a comparative religion section. I am a Christian. I am no more sceptical of Islam than you are of Christianity. You strike me as being too sensitive and even insecure. So attack me since you know best. How do you know that God cannot change me or you from deception oh mighty one???? Many have converted on both sides of the spectrum being on an opposing side. I am the minority on the forum and you are attempting to crush me with your clout. You know you have the advantage. Let me call it the way I see it. Instead of answering my questions you attack my intentions. If you have the truth, what do you fear friend?

I bring up Mormonism, because it is a real religion that battles against both Isalm and Christianity. My point is where to I draw the line with those that profess to be prophets receiving revelation from angelic beings. I sincerely am sceptical. I admitted that and have told you the truth and now you are back to judging me again.

Can we have a civil disscussion on comparative religion or not? I have listen to the debates with dr. Bart Erhman and dr. Evans. One thing the Catholics say I agree with. Jesus is true man from true man and true God from true God. I listen the Bart Ehrman debate; it seems to me that Dr. Evans pawned him. Ehrman states: "And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery."

This begs the question: “here is the truth.” I’m sorry, but extreme assertions like these require extreme evidence as proof that they are true. Yet Ehrman does not even try to offer any evidence let alone conclusive evidence. He simply states his position as “the truth.” Again, you cannot assume to be true the thing which you need to prove first. Fallacy. Lie.

Second, Ehrman expects us believe he has gotten inside the minds of the New Testament authors. He says they were conscious frauds, “knowing full well” what they did. But how in the world does Ehrman (or anyone else for that matter) have any idea what the New Testament authors knew in their minds? Again this is begging the question—and in a big way. It is a big lie. Ehrman strikes me as an atheistist Bible hack. If he attempts to butcher the Bible like that, what do you think he would do to the Quran? Like Dr. Evans said to put our faith in Jesus Christ is a sure foundation even though there are interpolations and translational errors it doesn't change the central theme of Scripture Jesus saves our souls.

Don't think that these scholars can't pick apart the Quran the way they do the Bible. It comes down to those that believe God exists and those that don't, and what we believe about God. Ehrman can shake hands with Dawkins the Atheist. Plz stop judging me. God is in control, not you, I am here for a reason! Maybe that reason is for me to convert or for you to revert. Allah knows best not MustafaMc.

To answer your question, yes, many questions can show doubt and that can frustrate. But that is all you had to say!

If I get another judgmental comment form a member on the forum I will stop posting again.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

No, I don't take it back as I am sorry that I misunderstood you were Brother Andrew. I apologize for getting angry with you. I do not see what I wrote as attacking you. I defined 'sincere' to show that I was in agreement that you are being sincere although at a time I thought otherwise. Neither do I see what I wrote as being false. You have shown that you came here with a clear bias against Islam, but you have also shown some indication of listening and expressed a willingness to modify your views. Yes, I have a strong opinion about both Islam and Christianity and some would call me opinionated, but only Allah (swt) is mighty and powerful. I have interacted with many Christians on this forum and I respect those who want to learn what Muslims really believe and their perspective on things, I respect those who want to establish inter-faith dialog and to increase mutual tolerance, I respect those who want to share their beliefs and attempt to correct what they see as misunderstandings by Muslims about the Christian faith. However, I don't believe this forum is the place for a Christian to try to convert Muslims away from the Truth of Islam. I don't believe this forum is the place for one to continually attack Islam and to spread false information or to misrepresent Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, or Islam in a light or way that is offensive to Muslims. There is a fine line between what you are doing and the later point, but I believe that you have legitimate questions and came here to listen to the Muslim perspective. I spent a lot of time in answering your question about the hadith where Prophet Muhammad (saaws) got angry over excessive questioning, but you chose not to reply to my perspective on the issue.

Yes, I agree there is a fine line. I am interested learning about Islam. And I must adimit I cann understand your sentiments to a point, because I can sense mix feelings in myself so I do struggle with my presentation, but I do have more questions some are better that others. I don't just look at what favorable scholars say, because just as in Christianity, it is with any religion, you never get the full story from a subjective view point.

I look at Christianity through a critcal eye as well, and I have frustrated pastors; so try not to take my skepticism of Islam personally. Some Muslims encourage me to ask the hard questions and to sock it to you so to speak, but I don't treat you any different than I want to be treated. I think it is safe to say that I am not more interested in seeing you Christian than you are to see me Muslim. I can respect that about you; why can't you respect that about me as, well? That is where I think you are taking a judgmental position. As long as I am being civil like Bart Erham was about Christianity, what do you fear from comparing & contrasting Christianity and Islam? You once mentioned the term or phrase "enemy of Islam" Well, aren't all non believers enemies of God? Jesus said something to the effect you are either for me or against me. Anyone who does not embrace Islam is an enemy of Allah. If an enemy of Allah, than one is an enemy of Islam, the same goes for Christianity. However, we can love each other as brothers of humanity and should, but like it or not there are spiritual battles being waged. BTW, I did respond to your perspective.

1. format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

   Have I written incorrectly? By the way did you read my conversation with 'redhogg'?
   Incorrectly, yes & no. rehogg? No, what post or thread was that in?
   
   format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

   If you have more questions about Islam, please do.
   Yes, I do. Muslims seem to use inferences from the Bible to support Islam, but when something doesn't; it is deemed corrupted. Would you say that is fair? Next, I hear Muslims tell me like you say that there is only one version of the Quran and many tell me of its scientific strengths such as it containing scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. Muslims give conversion testimony as a result. However, all the information in the Quran regarding Embryology was already in print before the Quran was compiled and recompiled; for instance, research takes me to a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. Next a Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. Finally, we have a Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC.

Well, can you show me something in the Quran that was not already revealed or that was new information? Even pre- Islamic history shows that polytheism was the way of life; but the idea of one God wasn't anything new during Muhammad's time; the Jews and Christians were monotheistic before the Quran was revealed.

Professor Keith Moore on the scientific miracles of the Quran



There's a longer version with even more on it, but I didn't have time to search it. But it's there if you are interested.

With regard to embryology, you do realise that today we have laser scanners that can show us the microscopic images of embryonic development - but in those times there was absolutely no way to know this. The Quran explains the three stages of conception in immaculate detail using language that even a child can understand. A prime example is the word "mughdah" which is a "chewed like substance" for example - some spat out bubble gum or morsel of food. The actual tooth marks in the gum represent the shape of the embryo, and this analogy is just beautiful because it transcends all cultures and all language as the simplicity of the intended verse is understandable beyond doubt.

The Quranic Arabic is something amazing when understood in its correct context.

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

There's a longer version with even more on it, but I didn't have time to search it. But it's there if you are interested.

With regard to embryology, you do realise that today we have laser scanners that can show us the microscopic images of embryonic development - but in those times there was absolutely no way to know this. The Quran explains the three stages of conception in immaculate detail using language that even a child can understand. A prime example is the word "alaq" which is a "chewed like substance" for example - some spat out bubble gum or morsel of food. The actual tooth marks in the gum represent the shape of the embryo, and this analogy is just beautiful because it transcends all cultures and all language as the simplicity of the intended verse is understandable beyond doubt.

The Quranic Arabic is something amazing when understood in its correct context.

Scimi

Thanks, I don't understand why this guy says that it wasn't discovered until centuries after Muhammad. As I mentioned, these embryological descriptions were in print before Muhammad started his minstry. Muslims say the idea of the "embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur'an anticipated modern embryology by depicting differing stages. However, many ancient writers besides Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. In the Jewish Talmud, for instance, we learn that the embryo has 6 stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as

1. golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
2. shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
3. 'ubbar (something carried);
4. v'alad (child);
5. v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
6. ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

(Yet with the benefit of modern science as you mentioned), we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, That's the reason for so much confusion today about abortion and embryo research. If we develop as a continuous process, it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts." This doesn't seem to support the Qur'anic verse to which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages". It had already been said and documented as well. But all the documentation wasn't exactly correct by today's standards. So I am hard pressed to make this scientific connection work for me. You don't have to agree with me but can you at least understand the point I am trying to make?
PBUY

just a brief bio on Ehrman, from Wiki:

Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973.

He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.

In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[2] His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2]

i don't agree with all of Ehrman's conclusions, but i have all of his lectures from The Teaching Company on mp3, and most of them on dvd as well, and many of his books.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/p...l.aspx?pid=150

you would be surprised to learn that when his works are reviewed by scholars, the generally make the statement that "this is nothing new." you see, the issues he talks about were realized by those who actually make translations.

my study [if you can call it that] of early Christianity shows gradual changes in "orthodoxy" usually in different "centers of power" heavily influenced by church leaders who had their own interpretations of Christian theology. but the changes Ehrman implies happened before, perhaps well before, Nicaea. the Gospel attributed to John, believed to have been penned around 95AD, clearly indicates a belief in Jesus as God at that time. [not that copies of John exist from that time, but that is the time believed]. it seems odd to try to place that at a later date. changes had to happen quickly, if the true apostles were martyred early it could help to explain how beliefs changed. like i've stated in another post somewhere, Christians were more concerned about converting, rather that formulating theology. this could help explain why it took so long for serious thought to be applied to matters of trinity and Godhead.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor

just a brief bio on Ehrman, from Wiki:

Thanks for sharing. BTW, Dr. Bart Erham does more damage of turning people away from God than Dr. Richard Dawkins. Let me tell you. If he could convince me, but he can't, that the Bible is false concerning the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would become agonist, but notice in all his debates online he doesn't say the historical Jesus wasn't crucified; there is historical evidence that happened. if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then all of Christianity is destroyed and we of all people are the most monstrous and sorry and miserable on the face of the earth.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

Yes bro BurningLight, I see what you are getting at. But regarding this verse:

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

"When He created you by (divers) stages"

Tafsir Dr Mohsin: While He has created you in (different) stages [i.e. first Nutfah, then 'Alaqah and then Mudghah,

I think you should take a look at this:


NUTFAH
The Holy Qura’n points , in many verses , that the beginning of the progeny of Adam is from nutfah : ” He has created man from nutfah (a drop of mingled fluid ) ; yet behold ! he is an obvious opponent ..” (Surah A-Nahl ; 16 : Ayah 4 ) –” His companion said to him , while disputing with him : Do you disbelieve in Him (God) Who created you from dust, then from nutfah ( drop of mingled fluid) , then He fashioned you into a man” (Surah Al-kahf ; 18 : Ayah 37 ) — ” O people! if you are in doubt about he Resurrection, then surely We created you from dust, then from nutfah (a drop of mingled fluid) , ….” ( Surah Al-Hajj ; 22 : Ayha 5) — ” And Allah did create you from dust; then from nutfah (a drop of mingled fluid ) …”(Surah Fatir; 35 : Ayah 11) — ” Does not man see that We have created him from nutfah ( a drop of mingled fluid ) ; yet behold ! he is an obvious opponent ..” ( Surah Ya-Seen; 36 : Ayah 77) — ”And that He did create the two sexes ; the male and female * from nutfah when it is poured forth ” (Surah An-Najm ; 53 Ayahat 45 & 46 ) — ” From what thing did He created him * From nutfah ( a drop of mingled fluid ) He created him , then immediately planned (programmed ) him. “. (Surah Abasa ; 80 : Ayahat 18 & 19 ).

From the previous verses including the term nutfah , it becomes clear that the creation of the progeny of Adam (Who is created from the clay or dust ) is from the nutfah ( a drop of fluid) . To know what is the meaning of the term nutfah and its description in Arabic, we can say that the term nutfah in Arabic language has several meanings , of which a small drop or a little amount of fluid.

The term nutfah , as it was explained by prophet Mohammad himself , peace and blessings be upon him , from his haith , when he was asked about creation of children by one of Jews : ” O, Jew , it is created from both ; from a man nutfah and from a woman nutfah ” ( This hadith was narrated in Musnad Ahmad, volume 1, page 465) . To explain this hadith , it is clear from the answer of prophet Mohammad , peace and blessings be upon him , that nutfah is the part by which the man shares in creation of a child and also nutfah is the part by which the woman shares in this creation . Thus , according to this hadith , it is clear that creation of a child occurs from both male and female and that the term nutfah is applicable to both male and female , not only male.

In one verse that describes the creation of progeny of Adam :” Then He made his progeny of an extract , of a little weak fluid ” (Surah As-sajda ; 32 : Ayah 8 ) , this verse means that creation occurs as an extract from that little weak fluid , in Arabic the word extract is the best of that fluid . Despite Qura’n does not mention in the previous verse , to whom belongs this fluid , it could be understood that this fluid originates from both sexes , not only one of them , that meaning could be appreciated from another verse of Qura’n ; ” O mankind ! We created you from a male and a female ..” (Surah Al-Hujraat ; 49 : Ayah 13) , in this verse , Allah , the – Al-mighty , Said that He Have created mankind from both sexes , the male and female , thus no one can longer say that Qura’n states that creation is from male only .

Now , after science have proven that creation is through fusion of a part from the man ( that is the sperm) and a part from the woman (that is the ovum) , Isn’t this the man nutfah and the woman nutfah given in the above hadith without any contradiction ?? Thus , it is possible to apply , the term nutfah to both the sperm (man nutfah) and the ovum (woman nutfah) respectively . In another hadith of Prophet Mohammad , He said : ” Not from all the fluid , the child will form , and if Allah Wants to create any thing , nothing can prevent Him to do so ..” (this is a part of a long Hadith narrated by Muslim , 2: 1064 ) , the meaning is clear as not from all the fluid means from only a little part of it. In essence , nutfah is source of the progeny of Adam.

ALAQAH:

Thealaqahstage mentioned in Qura’n and its interpretations , is considered the most controversial stage of the developing embryo that provoke objections among deniers of the scientific miracles of Qura’n and Sunnah in describing the stages of embryonic development. Some of these objectors , depending upon dictionaries of Arabic language , old commentators and ancient Arab poets , thatalaqahmeans the clotted blood and according to this view , the embryo duringalaqahstage is in the form of a clotted blood and this is a scientific error because there is no developmental stage of the embryo in which it is an clotted blood. Another group of objectors , depending upon the explanation given by professor Keith Moore that the embryo at 24 days is like a leech of water pools , although in the lateral view of the developing umbilicus (which is a part of the embryo) it is as large as the part similar to the leech . A third group of objectors describe that the explanation ofalaqahto indicate that the embryo is suspended to the uterus was accurately described by Aristotle on the 4th century B.C. and he mentioned the suspension of the embryo in the uterus !! Thus, there are three claims against alaqah described in Quran .. What is the answers to all these false claims???

To answer these claims, it will be easier to divide the answer into 3 parts :

1- The appropriate meaning of alaqah:

The wordalaqahin Arabic language has several meanings , the first one is ” attached and hanging to something ” , which a derivative of the Arabic verb “alaqa” .

When we review the scientific description of the embryo at the early developmental stages in modern embryology , it will be clear that the meaning of ” attached and hanging” that indicated by the word thealaqah, is in complete accordancewith the embryo at this stage of its life . How??

At the blastocyst stage , after rupture of the zona pellucida on about the 5th day , the inner cell mass (which will form the embryo in the future) is suspended inside the blastocyst and attached to uterine endometrium . The adherence of the blastocyst to the endometrium and begining of implantation , as it have been described , ends thenutfahstage and begins thealaqahstage.At about , 7 and half days , the blastocyst has been superficially implanted in the uterine endometrium , and the process of implantation is complete at day 9 ( or 10 ) after fertilization .


The last point of the blastocyst to enter the endometrium is the abembryonic pole and the defect in the endometrium at the site of entry is closed by a fibrin clot. At the 11th (or 12th ) day after fertilization , the blastocyst is completely implanted in the uterine stroma and is causing a slight protrusion into the uterine cavity with complete covering of the initial defect in the endometrium by the endometrial epithelium, through the growth of the tissue surrounding it.

When any one study the photos and diagrams accompanying this explanation , it will be clearly appreciated that the part of the nutfahwhich will form the embryo is the inner cell mass . That is a mass of condensed cells that are suspended inside the blastocyst and changed later on into a flat plate of 2 rows of cells that , after the formation of amniotic cavity , become the embryonic disc , that is also suspended inside chorionic vesicle and connected to its wall by the connecting stalk.

According to that , the accuracy of an“alaqah”ora meaning indicating suspension or hanging of the embryo,as described in Qura’n becomes clearly appreciated and is in complete accordance with modern embryology. This answers all who are doubting the miraculous description of Qura’n.

The description of an alaqah to denote hanging of embryo to the uterus by the umbilical cord is considered a scientific error , because the embryo remains suspended by umbilical cord until the end of pregnancy and the alaqah stage , as we previously described , ends about 24th or 25th day , when somites (that are characteristic features of the next stage , the mudghah ) begin to appear on the embryo.

Accordingly, we can describe that creation of man from an alaqah or alaq as reported in Qura’n , refers to his creation from that suspended cellular mass ( or in embryological terms , the inner cell mass and all cells derived from it until the embryonic disc is formed ) that fits the description of alaqah to mean attached and hanging to something …

2- Alaqah is not a clotted blood nor a leech:

As regard the explanation ofalaqahto be a clotted blood or a leech , this interpretation is wrong and is completely refused , even if given by Muslim scholars , commentators and non-specialized scientists. We should not absolutely assign misconceptions of ancient commentators and non specialized scientists to be faults of the great Qura’n . Why?? Suppose that someone saw an animal passing before him and it was dark that he could not clearly see the animal , he guessed that it was a dog as it is the animal familiar to him and accordingly he reported that he had seen a dog . Then , another person saw the same animal in the same darkness , and guessed that it was a fox as it is the animal familiar to him and accordingly he reported that he had seen a fox . At last , a third person having a source of light and saw the same animal and clearly identified it and reported that he had seen a wolf !Which one of the three persons is telling the truth??

In fact, no one can falsify the first or second person or consider them wrong , the absence of clear vision made them believe that they were telling the truth , despite it was not in accordance with the true description . On contrary , the last person , who had a method that enabled him to clearly see and identify the animal , it is logical that what he had reported is truth and is in accordance with reality…

If any one applied the previous presumptive story to the opinions of ancient commentators of Qura’n for the verses which deal with scientific issues , no one can deny their explanation that they had reached depending upon the data available at their time .

Nowadays , after the availability of atool that could give us a better understanding of the scientific verses of Qur’an , that is the great advances in experimental sciences , we can refuse the old interpretation and introduce the new one that is in accordance with scientific facts . This disagreement with ancient commentators is not wrong and do not offend Quran , which is the word of Allah , that could not be approached by falsehood ; as Allah , the Almighty , Said about Qura’n :“ Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or from behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Praised one ”(Surah Fussilat ; 41 : Ayah 42).

Thus , it is not logical to consider the mis-understanding of older commentators or the inaccurate translations of the verses of Qura’n by translators who are not fluent in Arabic language , to be an evidence to the presence of scientific errors in Qura’n , as alleged by the enemies to this great religion …

Alaqah is not a leech

Now , we come to those who described the embryo to be similar to a leech , including the book titled ” Embryo and Qura’n” that was issued by the international commission of scientific signs in Qura’n and Sunnah which was the reference to this description. The similarity to a leech depended upon comparing the side view of a leech to a longitudinal section in an embryo , however , the comparison in this way is not scientifically accurate . Despite the noble aim of those Muslim scholars, in their trial to prove that the embryo duringalaqahis similar in shape to the leech , to make all the meanings of the termalaqahin Arabic coincide with description of embryo at this time , yet this description was unfortunately scientifically incorrect due to the following reasons :

First ; a section in an embryo could not give an idea about its shape , as changing the direction of the section would change the resulting shape in the section produced.

Second ; for sound comparison , sections in both leech and embryo , should be the same and this was not done.

Third ; the most important one , there is no stage at all in embryo development where the embryo is similar to a leech , so those who claim this similarity should revise first the sound knowledge before unfairly sticking such wrong data to the holy Qura’n…

However , it is possible to accept that the embryo at alaqahis similar in behavior , which is very important , not in shape or appearance to a leech living in water ponds and attaching itself to animals and thrives on their blood . If any one review the embryo during the period ofalaqah in modern embryology , he will find it to be in the form of a flat disc, being bathed from above and below with fluid in both amniotic cavity and yolk sac , and receiving its initial nourishment via diffusion from the yolk sac and later from the maternal blood .

Thus , it is stressed here that the embryo is similar to a leech only in behavior , and this point was clarified to prevent the mis-understanding or the faulty interpretation of the verses to be unfairly attributed to Qura’n , which could give a chance to the enemies of this religion to overcome it…

Alaqah is not a blood clot

As regard the description ofalaqahto be a clotted blood , this is also another meaning of the term alaqah in Arabic that was,unfortunately used in the books of interpretations of Qura’n and in most translations of Qura’n , depending upon Arabic dictionaries and ancient Arabic poets where analaqahdenotes the blood in general or the thick clotted blood .


According to these meanings , the objectors to Qura’n miracles claim that the embryo inalaqahis in the form of a clotted blood which is a scientific error of Qura’n , as there is no stage of embryo development in which it is a clotted blood . This view was also reported in the book titled ” Embryo and Qura’n” , issued by the international commission of scientific signs in Qura’n and Sunnah , and also in all sites that copied from this book , probably, to approximate the meaning of clotted blood to the embryo at alaqah period. To explain that , it was that during alaqah the primitive cardiovascular system is developing in the intra-embryonic mesoderm ( between the two layers of the embryonic disc ) .

Scientifically , at this time ( about day 21) , the primitive cardiovascular system is in the form of 2 endothelial tubes , called dorsal aortae, one on each side of the developing notochord . In the same time, primitive blood vessels are developing in the mesoderm of the yolk sac , called the vitelline vessels , in mesoderm of the wall of the chorionic vesicle , called chorionic vessels, and in the mesoderm of the connecting stalk , called the umbilical vessels . The 2 dorsal aortae are bent cranially to join the cranial end of heart tube ( the future heart ) and are connected caudally with the umbilical arteries that pass through the umbilical cord to reach the placenta. Therefore , the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs , during this period of the alaqah stage , is similar to a mass of clotted blood.

The previous interpretation is more suitable to the later part of thealaqahperiod , as the primitive cardiovascular system is developing and the aforementioned the primitive blood vessels are like a closed network containing blood which, though in a fluid state , it does not circulate until the end of the 3^rdweek ( as the primitive heart begins to beat with the start of the 4^thweek , when the blood circulation begins). The primitive cardiovascular system could not be seen by naked eye , and this minute details were not known except recently . Moreover ,suppose that pregnancy have been terminated at this stage , and this conceptus was aborted from the uterus , What would be seen ? only pieces of damaged tissues and clotted parts of blood!!

Although the above facts about the development of the cardiovascular system are scientifically correct , yet the assumption that the embryo duringalaqahis in the form of a clotted blood is completely refused . This refusal depends upon the fact that the word alaqahin Arabic has several meanings ,one of them is a clotted blood , which is not suitable in use in describing the stages of embryo development . Therefore , the most accurate and suitable meaning toalaqah, as we have described above , is attached and hanging to something , which is also a meaning toalaqahin Arabic language.

At last , a word to all who are against the scientific miracles of Qura’n in the description of embryonic stages , Allah , the Almighty , Said :” O People of the scripture (Jews and Christians) why do you clothe (combine) truth with falsehood , and conceal the truth while you know (the truth of prophet-hood of Muhammad in your scriptures “( Surah Al-Imran ; 3 : Ayah 71); He also Said :“…..And those who disbelieve (in Allah), dispute with falsehood in order to refute the truth thereby , and they assume My signs (miracles) and My warnings (to torture them) as a jest “(Surah Al-Kahf ; 18 : Ayah 56 ).

MUGDHAH

Some objectors and deniers to the scientific miracles of Qura’n indescribing stages of embryonic development , claim that the term mudghah used by Qura’n to describe the embryo is vague . Moreover , the description of mudghah as a little piece of meat of a size that can be chewed , was not known before and it was lately introduced due to the presence of somites on the surface of developing embryo that simulate the teeth imprints on chewed gums. They claim that this is not only an imaginary interpretation but also incorrect , because for an embryo to be in the size of a chewed piece of meat ( size reaching about 20-30 milliliters ) one should wait till the embryo is 8 weeks old to fulfill the meaning of mudghah , whereas at the time alleged to be the duration of mudghah (26-27 days) the embryo’s size is not more than 4 millimeters.. How to answer these claims and refute them??

To answer this false claim , the length of the embryo reaches 10 -13 millimeters at the end of mudghah , which nearly equals the size of a piece of meat of a size that can be chewed (during the preceding stage ; alaqah , the embryo’s size does not exceed 3.5 millimeters which is too small to be chewed). As regard the external appearance , it is noted that during the early part ofmudghah , the presence of somites makes the embryo similar in shape to a chewed piece of gums that carries the imprints of teeth upon it which corresponds in meaning to the first meaning of mudghah : “something that has been chewed by the teeth” . However , this does not mean at all that the embryo is created from gums or similar substances .This was only explanatory example to show that the smallest size of substance that can be chewed equals the size of that small piece of gum..

The term mudghah that was used by the holy Qura’n , is not vague as objectors claim , on the contrary it is a very expressive and amazing in describing the embryo at this stage , and this was explained in the page of “description of mudghah” when comparing the meaning of mudghah in Arabic and in modern embryology.

When Qura’n was revealed, it was impossible to observe the embryo without special instruments which were not even available at that time. Moreover , the claim that Qura’n , as alleged by some objectors and deniers , was copied from the medicine of Greek , is not true , simply because human knowledge at that time did not have such a description to the stages of embryo similar to the accurate description documented in Qura’n, that is completely in accordance with the facts of modern embryology.

Who gave Muhammad , peace and blessings be upon him , such accurate knowledge about embryos that do not exceed one centimeter ?? It was extremely hard to study the aborted embryos at that time , as they are in the form tiny pieces in the blood that is expelled with them. Furthermore, it was not known in the past that such blood contained an abortus, due to the fact that it was not possible to detect a pregnancy within the first weeks during these embryonic stages. These are signs from Allah , the Almighty , Who Said : ” These are the signs (miracles) of Allah , We recite them to you in truth ; and verily you are one of the messengers” ( Surah Al-Baqara ; 2 : Ayah 252) , also He said : ” Say : O People of the scripture (Jews and Christians) why do you disbelieve in the signs (miracles) of Allah , and Allah is a witness of what you do ” ( Surah Al-Imran ; 3 : Ayah 98.

Source: http://www.medicine4faith.net

I hope this was useful to you bro BurningLight,

Bro Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

Thanks for sharing. BTW, Dr. Bart Erham does more damage of turning people away from God than Dr. Richard Dawkins. Let me tell you. If he could convince me, but he can't, that the Bible is false concerning the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would become agonist, but notice in all his debates online he doesn't say the historical Jesus wasn't crucified;

i believe i stated that i am not in complete agreement with Mr Ehrman.

there is historical evidence that happened. if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then all of Christianity is destroyed and we of all people are the most monstrous and sorry and miserable on the face of the earth.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

OK Mr Historian, please provide us with any historical contemporaneous evidence you have that Jesus, pbuh, was crucified. if you quote somebody, please give their name, when their statement was written and the evidence that you have that they witnessed this event.

we'll look at it historically!