Quote


"Nothing Useful In This World, Except What We Have For Hereafter"

My Blogs

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Bible Compared to Quran

Based on transcripts of vairous lectures given by Yusuf Estes & Dr. Gary Miller


Introduction by Yusuf Estes -

It should be stated at the outset of this work, that Muslims do not seek to put
down or desecrete the Holy Bible. It is a matter critical matter of faith for
Muslims to believe in the original revelations that came down to Moses, David,
Solomon and Jesus, just as it is is important for Muslims to believe in the
revelation of the Quran that came to Muhammad, peace be upon him. The key word
here however, is "original." As we all know the origin of the Bible is clouded
with centuries of copying, translating and passing down information, now long
lost with only copies of manuscripts remaining to remind us of what once was the
Bible.


Additionally, it should be noted that Muslims do not seek to destroy the
Christians or Jews belief in the Word of God, rather it is an obligation for
Muslims to call to what is right and to halt that which is evil. Certainly,
causing the "People of the Book" (as the Quran refers to Christians and Jews) to
fall into disbelief and leave off any faith in God at all, is the very opposite
of the direction Muslims should take in presenting any comparison between Islam
and what has come down in the past from the Almighty God. We only seek to bring
about more light to the people seeking guidance and pray for all of us to be
successful with our Lord in this life and in the Next life and we ask His
Guidance and Support in doing so, ameen.


THE BIBLE

[Yusuf Estes]


Old Testament


There exists today a number of different versions in the ancient Hebrew language
of the Jewish Book called the Torah [Law] and this is usually referred to in
Christianity as The Old Testament. Naturally, there have been many different
translations to a great number of languages over the centuries and one could not
expect them to be identical in text or meaning. What we have in English today
still remains somewhat similar to large amounts of these older documents.


New Testament


There are also different versions of the Gospel or what is commonly called The
New Testament in the Koine Greek language and Latin and these also have many
translations to even other langugaes. Even amongst the English translations
there are great differences. To mention two very clear differences for example;
the Catholic Bible [c. 325 A.D] contains 73 books in total, while the Protestant
Bible contains only 66 books, and although the newer (Protestant version) was
taken from the Catholic Bible even then these books do not match completely with
each other. There is no common denominator for any of the many different
versions of the Bible.


Dead Sea Scrolls


There have been a number of scrolls and parchments found in places surrounding
what we call the "Holy Land" over the centuries, not the least of which are
those often referred to as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" or as they are known to the
scholars "Wadi Qumran Scrolls." These were discovered in the last century around
1930 and have been proven to be very ancient and could well be older than any
other extant manuscripts. Much of what has been translated from these scrolls is
similar to some of the oldest manuscripts, but there are still very important
differences worthy of note. We would like to recommend some important reading on
this topic at the end of this paper.


THE QURAN

[Yusuf Estes]


Quran Means "Recitation"


The word "Quran" means "that which is recited; or that which is dictated in
memory form." As such, it is not a book, nor is it something that reaches us
only in written form. The documentation in writting about the Quran has been
preserved in museums thoughout the world, including the Topekopi Palace in
Istanbul, Turkey, the museum in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and also in England. Keep
in mind also, the Quran is only considered "Quran" while it is in the recitation
form, not in the written or the book form. The word for what is written and held
in the hand to be read by the eye is called "mus-haf" (meaning script or that
which is written down).


Only One Version - Arabic


There are no different versions of the Quran in the Arabic language, only
different translations and of course, none of these would be considered to hold
the value and authenticity of the original Arabic Recitation. The Quran is
divided up into 30 equal parts, called "Juz'" (parts) in the Arabic language.
These are learned by Muslims from their very early beginnings as children.


Memorized by Millions - Entirely


The important thing to keep in mind about the Quran is the memorization and
transmission of the actual "Rectiation" just as it came to Muhammad, peace be
upon him, from the Angel Gabriel and was learned and memorized by his companions
and they in turn, passed it down to their followers and continued in this way
until we see today, over 10,000,000 (ten million) Muslims who have committed the
entire Quran to memory. This is not a small feat. After all, how many other
works of literary value have been memorized and passed down through so many
generations, in the original language, without a single change in even one
sentence?


Each Muslim Has "Quran" Memorized


All Muslims have memorzied a portion of the Quran in the Arabic language, as
this is an important part of their daily prayers. Many Muslims have memorized
large portions of the Quran from one tenth to one half to all of the entire
Quran, and all in the original Arabic language. It should be noted, there are
over one and a half billion (1,500,000,000) Muslims worldwide and only about 10%
are Arab, all the rest are learing the Quran in Arabic as a second language.


God Speaks in First Person to Mankind in Quran


The Quran contains clear statements from Almighty God (Allah) and it is Him
speaking to all of us in the first person. He tells of us our own creation, the
creation of all that is the universe and what has happened to those before us
and what is to become of us if we do not take heed of the warnings clearly
spelled out in His Revelation. He speaks also to Muhammad, peace be upon him, to
show that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is not making this up himself and even
chastises Muhammad, peace be upon him, for making human assumptions rather than
waiting for revelation in matters (ie.; surah At-Tahreem and surah Abasa).


Quran Mentions Itself


The Quran refers to itself as "The Quran" (The Recitation) and mentions that it
is to all mankind and jinn (another creation of Allah, similar to humans in that
they could make choices as to whether or not they would obey God's Commandments,
and they existed before humans).


Quran Describes God's Nature Exactly


The Quran is clear on who God is and who He is not. There is no room left for
doubt after reading the Quran in the Arabic languge: God is One. He is the only
Creator, Sustainer and Owner of the Universe. He has no partners. He has no
relatives; wives, children or offspring. He is not like His creation and He does
not need it for His existance, while all the time the creation is totally
dependent on Him. His attributes are clearly spelled out as the epitome of each
and every one. He is for instance, the All-Knowing; the All-Hearing; the All-Seeing;
the All-Forgiving; the All- Loving; the All-Merciful; the Only One God. There is
never a contradiction to this found anywhere in the Quran.


Quran Challanges Readers


The Quran makes the clear challange, that if you are in doubt about it - then
bring a book like it. Also, to bring ten chapters like it and then finally, to
bring one single chapter like it. 1,400 years - and no one has been able to
duplicate it's beauty, recitation, miracles and ease of memorization. Another
challange for the unbelievers to consider; "If this (Quran) were from other than
Allah, you would find within it many contradictions." And yet, another challange
offered by Allah in the Quran is for the unbelievers to look around for
evidences. Allah says He will show them His signs within themselves and on the
farthest horizons.


Scientific Miracles in Quran


The scientific miracles of the Quran could not have been understood at that time,
yet today we take for granted the many things included in the revelation of the
Quran. Some include mentioning: The formation of embryo in the womb of the
mother (surah 98); deep seas partitions; waters that do not mix; clouds and how
they make rain and how lightning is caused by ice crystals; formation of the
earth's mountains deep underground; orbits of planets and stars and moons - and
even the mention of space travel (surah 55:33).


- COMPARISON of BIBLE & QURAN-

[Dr. Gary Miller- with Commentary by Yusuf Estes]


Bible is Collection of Writings -

Quran is Recitation From God to Muhammad (p)


Whereas, The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors, the
Quran is a dictation (or recitation). The speaker in the Quran - in the first
person - is God Almighty (Allah) talking directly to man. In the Bible you have
many men writing about God and you have in some places the word of God speaking
to men and still in other places you have some men simply writing about history
or personal exchanges of information to one another (ex: Epistle of John 3). The
Bible in the English King James Version consists of 66 small books. About 18 of
them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so? The rest
make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book
of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of
Elmitaeh saying? quote and then it continues for two or three pages.


Compare this to the beginning of the Book of "Luke" begins by saying: ?In as
much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things
which have been fulfilled among us, (2) Just as those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, (3) It seemed
good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very
first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, (4) That
you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.


We see the author of the Book of "Luke" saying essentially, "Many people have
written about things, it seems fitting for me to do so too.? "Luke" says it
seems to him that as long as others are taking in hand to write something about
it, even though they were eye witnesses to the whole thing, he feels that even
though he was not, he still has "perfect understanding of all things from the
very first."


Therefore this is only a letter from one person to another, neither of whom knew
Jesus, peace be upon him, nor were eyewitnesses to any of what had taken place.
[Y. Estes]


If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke
begins by saying: ?many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for
me to do so too?. That is all? no claim of saying ? these words were given to me
by God here they are for you it is a revelation?, there is no mention of this.


"Bible" is NOT in the Bible


The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in
the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are
sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we
have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: ?All
scripture is inspired of God? and there are those who would say, here is where
the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it. But
if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to
Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: ?Since you were a young man you
have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God? and so on?
When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing
that stems he was talking about are scriptures ? which are only a portion of the
Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.


Bible Curses Church Fathers Who REMOVED Book of Revelations


There is at the end of the Bible a verse which says:


Rev 22:18 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book (Revelations): if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the
plagues that are written in this book:

19. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, god
shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book. [Y. Estes]


?Let anyone who takes away from this book or adds to this book be cursed?. This
to is sometimes pointed to me saying: Here is where it sums itself as a whole.
But look again and you will see that when it says: Let no one change this book,
it is talking about that last book, #66 (or is it #73 in the Catholic Bible?),
the Book of Revelation. It has too, because any reference will tell you that the
Book of Revelation was written before certain other parts of the Bible were
written. It happens today to be stacked at the end, but there are other parts
that came after, so it can not be referring to the entire book.


(Incidentally, according to different manuscripts much older than the King James
Version, there are different words at the end of the Book of Revelation, so how
would we resolve that matter? - Y.E.)


Note: The Book of Revelation was taken out of the Bible several times and then
replaced and then taken out and replaced according to various Church Councils
throughout Church history. Guess the Church Fathers didn't read the curse at the
end of the book?


Whose Word Is It?


It is an extreme position held only by some Christian groups that the Bible ? in
its entirety - cover to cover is the revealed word of God in every word, but
they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim. They will say
that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the
original writings.


So if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it you are
going to be told: Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they
have crept in so that we see them there today.


They are going on problem in that position. There is a verse in the Bible Isaiah
40:8 which in fact is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside
front cover as an introduction and it says : ? The grass weathers, the flower
fades, but the word of our God stands forever?. Here is a claim in the Bible
that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, it won't be
lost. So if today you find a mistake in the Bible you have two choices. Either
that promise was false that when God said my word wont fade away, he was
mistaken, or the portion which has the mistake in it was not a part of the word
of God in the first place, because the promise was that it would be safeguarded,
it would not be corrupted.


Are There Mistakes?


I have suggested many times that there are mistakes in the Bible and the
accusation comes back very quickly: Show me one. Well there are hundreds. If you
want to be specific I can mention few. You have for example at 2nd Samuel 10:18
a description of a war fought by David saying that he killed 7000 men and that
he also killed 40000 men on horsebacks. In 1st Chronicles 19 it mentions the
same episode saying that he killed 70000 men and the 40000 men were not on
horsebacks, they were on foot. The point be what is the difference between the
pedestrian and not is very fundamental.


How Did Judas Die?


Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself. Acts 1 says
that, no he jumped off a cliff head first. If you study Logic very soon you will
come in your course to what they call an ?undecidable propositions? or ?meaningless
sentences? or statements that can not be decided because there is no contextual
false. One of the classic examples sited is something called the Effeminites
paradox. This man was Cretan and he said ?Cretans always lie?, now was that
statement true or false? If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie is
he lying? If he is not lying then he is telling the truth then the Cretans don?t
always lie ! You see it can not be true and it can not be false, the statement
turns back on itself. It is like saying ?What I am telling you right now is a
lie? would you believe that or not? You see the statement has no true content.
It can not be true and it can not be false. If it is true it is always false. If
it is false it is also true.


Well in the Bible at Titus 1:12 the writer is Paul and he is talking about the
Cretans. He says that one of their own men ? a prophet - said ?Cretans always
lie? and he says that what this man says is true. It is a small mistake, but the
point is that it is a human mistake, you don?t find that if you carefully
examine the true content of that statement. It can not be a true statement.


Who is the Author?


Now I come back to the Quran, and as I mentioned the speaker in the Quran is -
in the first person - is God. The book claims throughout that it is the word of
God. It names itself 70 times as the Quran. It talks about its own contents. It
has self-reference. The Quran states in the first Sura after Fatiha that ?This
is the book, there is no doubt in it, it is a guidance for those who are
conscious of God? and so on and so on? It begins that way and continues that way
stressing that. And there is one very amazing statement in the Quran when you
come to the fourth Sura 82nd Ayah which says to those who say Quran is something
else than the word of God. It challenges them saying: ?Have they not considered
the Quran, if it came from someone other than God they will find in it many
mistakes?. Some of you are students, would you dare to hand in a paper after you
completed a research work or something at the bottom you put down there ?You
wont find mistakes in this?. Would you dare to challenge your professor that way?.
Well the Quran does that. It is telling: If you really think you know where this
came from then starts looking for mistakes because you wont find any. Another
interesting thing the Quran does is that it quotes all its critics. There has
never - in hundreds of years - ever been some suggestion as to where that book
came from but that the Quran does not already mention that objection and reply
to it. Many times you will find the Ayah saying something like: Do they say such
and such and so, say to them such and such and so. In every case there is a
reply. More than that the Quran claims that the evidence of its origin is in
itself, and that if you look at this book you will be convinced.


Difference of Authority


So the difference in Christianity and Islam comes down to a difference of
authority and appeal to authority. The Christian wants to appeal to the Bible
and the Muslim wants to appeal to the Quran. You can not stop by saying: This is
true because me book say it is, and somebody else would say something else is
true because my book says differently, you can not stop at that point, and the
Quran does not. The Christians may point to some words that it is recorded Jesus
said and say this proves my point. But the Muslim does not simply open his book
and say: No, no the Quran says this, because the Quran does not simply deny
something the Bible says and say something else instead. The Quran takes the
form of a rebuttal, it is a guidance as the opening says (Huda lil mutakeen). So
that for every suggestion that the Christian may say: My Bible say such and such,
the Quran will not simply say: No that is not true, it will say: Do they say
such and such then ask them such and such. You have for example the Ayah that
compares Jesus and Adam. There are those who may say that Jesus must have been
God (Son of God) because he had no father. He had a woman who was his mother,
but there was no human father. It was God that gave him life, so he must have
been God?s son. The Quran reminds the Christian in one short sentence to
remember Adam - who was his father ? - and in fact, who was his mother ? He did
not have a father either and in fact he did not have a mother, but what does
that make him? So that the likeness of Adam is the likeness of Jesus, they were
nothing and then they became something; that they worship God.


Quran Invites - Not Demands


So that the Quran does not demand belief - the Quran invites belief, and here is
the fundamental difference. It is not simply delivered as: Here is what you are
to believe, but throughout the Quran the statements are always: Have you O man
thought of such and such, have you considered so and so. It is always an
invitation for you to look at the evidence; now what do you believe ?


Special Pleading of the Bible


The citation of the Bible very often takes the form of what is called in
Argumentation: Special Pleading. Special Pleading is when implications are not
consistent. When you take something and you say: Well that must mean this, but
you don?t use the same argument to apply it to something else. To give an
example, I have seen it in publications many times, stating that Jesus must have
been God because he worked miracles. In other hand we know very well that there
is no miracle ever worked by Jesus that is not also recorded in the Old
Testament as worked by one of the prophets. You had amongst others, Elijah, who
is reported to have cured the leper, raise the dead boy to life and to have
multiplied bread for the people to eat - three of the most favourite miracles
cited by Jesus. If the miracles worked by Jesus proved he was God, why don?t
they prove Elijah was God ? This is Special Pleading, if you see what I mean.
The implications are not consistent. If this implies that then in that case it
must also imply the same thing. We have those who would say Jesus was God
because he was taken up in the heaven. But the Bible also says the a certain
Einah did not die he was taken up into the heaven by God. Whether it is true or
not, who knows, but the point is if Jesus being taken up proves he is God, why
does not it prove Einah was God? The same thing happened to him.


Clear Parts & Difficult Parts of Bible


I wrote to a man one time, who wrote a book about Christianity and I had some of
the objections I mentioned to you now. And his reply to me was that I am making
matters difficult to myself, that there are portions in the Bible that are
crystal clear and that there are portions that are difficult, and that my
problem was that I am looking at the difficult part instead of the clear parts.
The problem is that this is an exercise in self deception - why are some parts
clear and some parts difficult? It is because somebody decided what this clearly
means, now that makes this very difficult. To give you an example, John Chapter
14 a certain man said to Jesus: Show us God, and Jesus said: If you have seen me
you have seen God. Now without reading on the Christian will say: See Jesus
claimed to be God, he said if you have seen me you have seen God. If that is
crystal clear then you have a difficult portion when you go back just a few
pages to Chapter 5 when another man came to Jesus and said show us God and he
said you have never seen God you have never heard his voice. Now what did he
mean there if on the other occasion he meant that he was God? Obviously you have
made matters difficult by deciding what the first one meant. If you read on in
Chapter 14 you will see what he went on to say. He was saying the closest you
are going to seeing God are the works you see me doing.


Bible Does Not Claim Jesus Claimed to Be Son of God


It is a fact that the words ?son of God? are not found on the lips of Jesus
anywhere in the first three Gospel accounts, he was always calling himself the
Son of Man. And it is a curious form of reasoning that I have seen so often that
it is established from Bible that he claimed to be God because - look how the
Jews reacted. They will say for example he said such and such and the Jews said
he is blaspheming, he claimed to be God and they tried to stone him. So they
argue that he must have been claiming to be God because look ! - the Jews tried
to kill him. They said that?s what he was claiming. But the interesting thing is
that all the evidence is then built on the fact that a person is saying: I
believed that Jesus was the son of God because the Jews who killed him said that?s
what he used to say ! His enemies used to say that, so he must have said it,
this is what it amounts to. In other hand we have the words of Jesus saying he
would keep the law, the law of Moses and we have the statement in the Bible, why
did the Jews kill him ? Because he broke the law of Moses. Obviously the Jews
misunderstood him, if he promised he would keep the law, but they killed him
because he broke the law, they must have misunderstood him, or lied about him.


Writers of Bible - Out of Context


When I talk about the Bible and quote various verses here and there I am often
accused of putting things out of context, to say you have lifted something out
of what it was talking about and given it a meaning. I don?t want to respond to
the accusation as such, but it doesn?t seem to occur to many people that perhaps
those who wrote portions of the Bible in the first place were guilty of the same
thing. Maybe they ? some of those writers - believed a certain thing and in
order to prove it quoted from their scriptures ? the Old Testament, the Hebrew
writings - quoted out of context to prove their point. There are examples of
that kind of thing. In Matthew 2 it said that a king wanted to kill the young
child Jesus so he with his family went to Egypt, and they stayed there until
that king died, and then they came back.


When the writer of Matthew, whoever he was, because the name Matthew won't be
found in the book of Matthew; when he described this event saying that he came
back out of Egypt, he said: ? This was to fulfil a prophecy which is written?
and then he quotes Hosea Chapter 11 ?Out of Egypt I called my Son?. So he said
because Jesus went to Egypt and then came back out of Egypt and we have this
passage in the Hebrew scriptures ?out of Egypt I called my son? Jesus must have
been the son of God. If you look and see what he was quoting, Hosea 11:1 he
quotes the second half of a complete sentence, the complete sentence reads: ?When
Israel was young I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son?. Israel the
nation was considered as the son of God. Moses was told to go to Pharaoh and say
to him: If you touch that nation of people, you touch my son; warning him,
warning Pharaoh: don?t touch that nation, calling the nation ?the son of God?.
So that this is the only thing talked about in Hosea 11:1. ?Out of Egypt I
called my son? can only refer to the nation of Israel. I mentioned this point
some months ago here in another talk, to which a young lady with us objected
that Israel is a symbolic name for Jesus. You will have a hard time finding that
anywhere in the Bible because it isn?t there. You can take an index of the Bible
and lookup the word ?Israel? everywhere the word occurs and you will find no
where in any place that you can connect the word Israel with Jesus. But never
mind - suppose it is true, read on, the second verse says ?and after that he
kept on worshipping Bal?, because this is what the Israelites were guilty of,
very often they kept falling back into Idol worshipping. So if that ?Israel?
really meant Jesus and it means that Jesus is the son of God that came out of
Egypt they must also mean that Jesus from time to time used to bow down to that
idol Bal. You have to be consistent, and follow through on what it says. So the
point is whoever wrote Matthew and Chapter 2 was trying to prove a point by
quoting something out of context, and he undid himself, because if you follow
through on it, it can not be so.


Quran Has Internal Evidences


Now I can come back to the claim the Quran makes that it has internal evidence
of its origin. There are many many ways that you can look at this. As one
example, if I single out somebody here and say: You know, I know your father -
he is going to doubt that, he has never seen me with his father. He would say,
how does he look like, is he tall short does he wear glasses? and so on, and if
I give him the right answers pretty soon he will get convinced, ?Oh yes, you did
meet him?. If you apply the same kind of thinking when you look at the Quran,
here is a book that says it came from the one who was there when the universe
began. So you should be asking that one: So tell me something that proves it.
Tell me something that shows me you must have been there when the universe was
beginning. You will find in two different Ayahs the statement that all the
creation began from a single point, and from this point it is expanding. In 1978
they gave the Noble prize to two people who proved that thats the case. It is
the big bang origin of the universe. It was determined by the large radio
receivers that they have for the telephone companies which were sensitive enough
to pick up the transmissions from satellites and it kept finding background
noise that they could not account for. Until the only explanation came to be, it
is the left over energy from that original explosion which fits in exactly as
would be predicted by the mathematical calculation of what would be this thing
if the universe began from a single point and exploded outwards. So they
confirmed that, but in 1978. Centuries before that here is the Quran saying the
heavens and the earth in the beginning they were one piece and split and says in
another Ayah : ?of the heavens we are expanding it?.


Quran Has Exact Accuracy


Let me tell you about a personal investigation, it occurred to me that there are
a number of things you can find in the Quran that give evidence to its origin ?
internal evidence. If the Quran is dictated from a perfect individual; it
originates with God, then there should not be any wasted space, it should be
very meaningful. There should be nothing that we don?t need that you can cut off,
and it should not be missing anything. And so that everything in there should
really be there for a specific purpose. And I got to thinking about the Ayah
which I mentioned before, it says, the likeness of Jesus is the likeness of Adam.
It an equation, it uses the Arabic word (mithel), it says Jesus, Adam, equal.
You go to the index of the Quran, you look up the name ISA it is in the Quran 25
times, you lookup the name Adam it is there 25 times. They are equal, through
scattered references but 25 of each. Follow that through and you will find that
in the Quran there are 8 places were an Ayah says something is like something
else, using this (Mithel), you will find in every case and take both sides of it
whatever that word is look it up in the index and it will be lets say 110 times
and lookup the other word and it will be said to be equal to the same 110. That
is quite a project of co-ordination if you try to write a book that way yourself.
So that everywhere you happened to mention that such and such is like such and
such that then you check your index, filing system, or your IBM punch cards or
whatever, to make sure that in this whole book you mentioned them both the same
number of times. But that?s what you will find in the Quran.


Quran Provides Reason


What I am talking about is built on a thing that is called in Logic: Use and
Mention of a Word. When you use a word, you are using its meaning. When you
mention a word, you are talking about the symbol without the meaning. For
example, if I say Toronto is a big city - I used the word Toronto as I meant
this place Toronto is a big city. But if I say to you Toronto has 7 letters, I
am not talking about this place Toronto, I am talking about this word - Toronto.
So, the revelation is above reasoning, but it is not above reason. That is to
say we are more apt not to find in the Quran something that is unreasonable, but
we may find something that we would have never figured out for ourselves.


Unique Word Refers to Itself in Quran


The author of this sentence said if this book came from someone besides God then
you will find in it many Ikhtalafan (inconsistencies). The word Ikhtilaf is
found many times in the Quran. But the word Ikhtalafan is only found once in the
Quran. So there are not many Ikhtilafan in the Quran, there is only one - where
the sentence is mentioned. So you see how things are put together perfectly. It
has been suggested to mankind: Find a mistake. Man could not get hold of a
mistake, and he is very clever, because this sentence could also mean: Find many
Iktilafan and so he quickly goes to the index to see if he can find many of them
and there is only one... Sorry clever person.


[end of Dr. Gary Miller and Yusuf Estes]


Bible And Quran - Originally Both From Allah


Conclusion: Both the Bible and the Quran have come to us by way of Almighty God,
then through His angel Gabriel and then to the prophets, peace be upon them.
However, when the next step comes into play (that of the human beings faithfully
transmitting it on to others and future generations) we find out that Allah has
only perserved His Last and Final Revelation for all times. And He certainly did
not need the humans to do that.


Respect For Holy Books


Muslims should respect the Bible because it does still contain some of the
original teachings of Allah. But there is no need to go to Bible classes or
purchase one to read to try to learn about what our purpose is here in this life.
The Quran makes it clear that Allah has indeed, perfected our "way of life" for
us and has conferred on us His favor and has chosen for us to submit to Him in
Islam.


We would like to suggest to the non-Muslims to consider obtaining a Quran (order
one free through our site if you like) and then investigate for themsleves what
the Quran is really all about and what it might mean to them in their lives.


Final comment from Yusuf Estes:


I would like to state that after years of studying the Bible and then learning
the Arabic language to read the Quran as it was originally recited to Muhammad,
peace be upon him, by the angel Gabriel, I have come to an amazing conclusion.
It seems to me that the Bible and the Quran are most definitely from the exact
same source and they compliment each other very nicely. In fact, it appears that
the Bible does not contradict the Quran, except in the very same places where
the Bible contradicts itself.

Who Wrote the Bible?

Friedman, Richard Elliott

Summit Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.) 1987


[we begin our quote from page 232-233]


Artistry Upon Artistry


The redactor, whom I identify as Ezra, has been the least appreciated of the
contributors to the Five Books of Moses. Usually, more credit is given to the
authors of the stories and the laws. That may be an error.


The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P,
and D were in theirs. His contribution was certainly as significant as theirs.


His task was not merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and
literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that is no less an art
than storytelling.


In the end, he was the one who created the work that we have read all these
years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of
ways, have influenced millions.


Is that his influence? Or is it the influence of the authors of the sources? Or
would it be better to speak of a literary partnership of all these contributors,
a partnership that most of them never even knew would take place? How many
ironies are contained in this partnership that was spread over centuries? How
many new developments and ideas resulted from the combination of all their
contributions?


In short, the question for the last chapter of this book is: is the Bible more
than the sum of its parts?


[end of quote]


Pentateuch [First five books appearing in the Old Testament]:

Moses is the major figure through most of these books, and early Jewish and
Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the
Five Books of Moses themselves does the text say that he was the author.

[Deut. 31:9,24-26 describes Moses as writing a scroll of the torah - but no
claim that the scroll included all five books. Only later did torah come to mean
the Pentateuch]

But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented
problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in
a particular order, and later it would say that those same events happened in a
different order. It would say that there were two of something, and elsewhere it
would say that there were fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the
Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who
did it. It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before
Moses builds the Tabernacle.

People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses
could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave
an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on
earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out
that he is the humblest man on earth. (17f.)


Objections largely met through various forms of explanation (including midrash).
But in the medieval period, the objections began to be met with an
acknowledgment that Moses may not have been the sole author:

In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler
in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in
Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush
suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The
response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer." (19)


But the man who called him this, 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra added

...several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that
referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have
known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that
reflected another time and locale from those of Moses. (19)


Friedman suggests that Ibn Ezra recognized that these passages confirmed ibn
Yashush's claim - but advised silence.


The silence was broken in the 14th ct. by Bonfils in Damascus. Bonfils wrote

"And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses
did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it." Bonfils was not
denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages
in question were written by "one of the later prophets." He was only concluding
that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later,
his work was reprinted with the references to the subject deleted. (19)

[contrary to the old tradition that Joshua wrote the account of Moses' death] ...in
the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the
account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it.
This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few
lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript.

In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the
Five Books but that editors when over them later, adding an occasional word or
phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a
Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere,
thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers
expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the
name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it
better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books. (19-20)


In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that
Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.


Hobbes (17th ct.) - example: the use of the phrase "to this day," which is not a
phrase used by someone describing a contemporary situation


Four years later, Isaac de la Peyr�re (French Calvinist) - "across the Jordan" (Deut
1:1), which would place Moses in Israel, which otherwise contradicts the claim
that Moses never entered Israel. (book was banned and burned; de la Peyr�re was
arrested, forced to become a Catholic.)


Roughly contemporary, Spinoza published a unified critical analysis
demonstrating the problematic passages pervaded the text:

There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was
unlikely to have made (e.g., "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses'
death, the expression "to this day," the references to geographical locales by
names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that
were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various
contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that earlier investigators
had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never
arose another prophet in Israel like Moses...." Spinoza remarked that these
sound like the words of someone who live a long time after Moses and had the
opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison. (They also do
not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth.) Spinoza wrote, "It is...clearer
than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by
someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism.
Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was
placed on the Catholic Index, within six years thirty-seven edicts were issued
against it, and an attempt was made on his life. (20-21)


(Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who converted from Protestantism, wrote what
he intended to be a critique of Spinoza, claimed that

the core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some
additions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, arranged, and
elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets,
guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the
sanctity of the biblical text. (21)


- but his contemporaries were not ready - he was attacked by Catholic clergy,
expelled from his order, and his books were placed on the Index. Protestants
wrote 40 refutations of his work. 1294 copies of his book were burned - 6
survived. An English translation landed the translator in the tower. (21)


Eighteenth ct. - in response to doublets:

A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it
is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail
in two different places in the bible. There are two different stories of the
creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the
patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac, two stories
of Abraham's claiming to a foreign king that his wife Sarah is his sister, two
stories of Isaac's son Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia, two stories of a
revelation to Jacob at Beth-el, two stories of God's changing Jacob's name to
Israel, two stories of Moses' getting water from a rock at a place called
Meribah, and more. (22)

- three independent investigators (H. B. Witter, a German minister; Jean Astruc,
a French medical doctor, and J. G. Eichhorn, a German professor) arrived at the
same conclusion: two different sources for these stories, from writers who lived
after Moses. (23)


The sources:

J -- Yahweh/Jehovah as the name of God

E -- Elohim as the name of God

P -- the largest: includes most of the legal sections, priestly matters

D -- only found in the book of Deuteronomy


opposition to the Documentary hypothesis in the 19th ct. - but in the 20th ct.,
major turning point with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII,
1943, "the Magna Carta for biblical progress."


The Pope encouraged scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for
those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit..."
He concluded:

Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived
from recent research endeavor to determine the peculiar character and
circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources
written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.
(27)


Eventually accepted by Protestant and Jewish scholars as well. In the current
generation of Biblical scholars, the Documentary Hypothesis "continues to be the
starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it,
and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it." (28)


It is, in my terms, the equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics.


=========================


The World that Produced the Bible: 1200-722 B.C.E.


little historical information about the patriarchs, their experiences as slaves
in Egypt, the wandering in the Sinai. Evidence for accurate picture of life of
biblical only from about 12th ct. B.C.E., as the Israelites become established
in this region.


Tribal - thirteen, "with considerable differences in size and population from
the smallest to the largest. Twelve of the tribes each had a distinct
geographical territory. The thirteenth, the tribe of Levi, was identified as a
priestly group. Its members lived in cities in the other tribes' territories.
Each tribe had its own chosen leaders."


Judges, priests: judges both heard disputes and provided military leadership.
Priests served at religious ceremonies - first of all, sacrifices (receiving a
portion of the sacrificed animal, produce).


Prophets - from any occupation: Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a cowboy. "The
word in Hebrew for prophet is nabi, which is understood to mean 'called.'" (36)

"Bible - A Closer Look!"

by Yusuf Estes - Former Christian - Muslim Chaplain

[Last Revision July 25, 2005]


Chapter 1 "Is 'King James' Version the Actual Bible?"


Note: The word "Bible" comes from the Koine Greek word "biblios" and it simply
means the same as the word "book" in English. Nowhere in the Bible do we find
the word "Bible." However, it is interesting to note the word "kitab" (Bible in
Arabic) appears many times in the Quran, referring to the Bible and the People
of the Book (Jews and Christians).


Let me begin by saying that the King James "version" of the Bible is in English.
There was no English language until the year 1066 AD when the Normans invaded
the Saxxons. Therefore the English Bible cannot be anything like what any of the
prophets spoke or understood, as it did not exist in their times.


Next, my grandfather, who was a devout and wonderful Christian man gave a gift
of the Holy Bible to my sisters and I almost fifty years ago. It was an
authorized version of the Bible, being The Revised Standard Version of the Bible
which was a revised version of the American Standard Version, published in 1901,
which was a version of the King James Version, published in 1611, which was
revised and corrected for the first time in 1612, etc. I was very much impressed
with the easier to read text and clarification of some of the wording which was
presented in this version and began to read the Bible on a daily basis for hours
at a time. The removal of the Elizabethton English terms, phrases and
expressions made the Bible a more accessible and understandable and intimate
Book for me. But that is not all the RSV did for me and many others, as well.


My love and respect for the Word of God increased the more that I spent time
reading and understanding the message. The Bible became my most prized and
respected book in my life. I often turned to it throughout the rest of my life
in times of joy, happiness, sadness, troubles and pain. It was my compass, my
road map, my weather vane and my friend. However, there were still some problems
with this IMPROVED VERSION of the Holy Bible. It began to disturb and concern me
to the extent that I made consultation with my father, who was also an ordained
minister and student of the Bible since childhood. Based on his research and
background in the origin and sources for modern day Christianity, I began to go
deeper into the problems which had plagued my thinking and faith since childhood.


I prayed to Almighty God and then found the answers to some of the problems were
spelled out very clearly in the very beginning of the exact same book. I have
that book lying in front of me on my desk as I write this article and would like
to quote to you from some of the PREFACE page iii and iv:

"The King James Version has with good reason been termed 'the noblest monument
of English prose.' Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration of 'its simplicity,
its dignity, its power, its happy turns of express... the music of its cadences,
and the felicities of its rhythm.' It entered, as no other book has, into the
making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking
peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt."


"Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth
century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many
manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based,
made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a
revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of
the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bibles was
published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying
the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published
in 1901."


"Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two
decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English
Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American
Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes.
In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious
Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United
States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of
education and publication."


".... decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the
version of 1901..""In 1937 the revision was authorized by vote of the Council."


"Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making
the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board
of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations."


"Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the
charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds
vote of the total membership of the Committee."


"The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old
testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament."


"For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving
many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three
centuries later than the original composition of the books."


"For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of
the Dead Sea Texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books)
based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the
books were written."


"The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as
fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the 'Masoretes')
of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the
Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and
convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been
done."


"... vowel points are less ancient and [less] reliable than the consonants."


"Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made
only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text
was standardized."


"Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions [translations
into Greek Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin], which were made before the time of the
Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text."


"Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of
the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the
best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of
the original text."


"Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain."


"Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we
have given an alternative rendering in a footnote."


"If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain
or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the
inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a
note."


"It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or
unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated."


"To record all minority views was obviously out of the question."


"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that
was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries
of manuscript copying."


"It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589,
who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon
a few medieval manuscripts."


"The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from
the tenth century, and [yet] he made the least use of it because it differed
most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of
great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little
use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus."


"We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the new Testament, and are far
better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The
evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better that for any
other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness
of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was
originally written."



The words are in plain English. The second paragraph says it all, "Yet, the King
James Version has grave defects.


Therefore, we must conclude the "King James Version" is NOT the Actual Bible
sent by God to mankind.


Chapter 2 "Contradictions in the Bible?"


First and foremost, let me be perfectly clear on the position of Muslims
regarding the authenticity of the Holy Bible. It is a condition of faith for
believers to believe in all of God's Books and scripture as stipulated by the
Quran, the Last and Final Testament from Almighty God to mankind, that the
previous scriptures, including of course the Old Testament (Arabic = Torah), the
Psalms (Arabic = Zabur) and the New Testament (Arabic = Injeel) were all from
Almighty God (Arabic = Allah) in their original form. The beginning verses of
the Quran clearly spell out the position of the 'Believer' with regard to these
scriptures. As the translation from Arabic may be rendered regarding the
conditions of believers:


"And they (believers) believe in what is being sent down to you (Muhammad, peace
be upon him) and they believe in what has been sent down before (previous Holy
scriptures to Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and of course Jesus, peace be upon
them all)." [Quran 2:2,3]


Therefore, it must be established that Muslims do accept that Almighty Allah did
send down many Holy Books and he did allow the people to alter, change, delete
and make additions to these Books, and as such, they can not longer be
considered as the "Word of God" in their present condition. This is something
immediately agreed upon by all qualified Biblical scholars.


Incidentally, there is sufficient evidence in the Quran to prove the remainder
of the Bible still contains many of the original teachings and sayings of the
prophets to whom the various scriptures were revealed.


From the previous chapter we can easily determine that the original source of
the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments have been lost and are no longer
extant in any language. What has remained and been referred to for translations,
is in fact nothing more than old copies that do not necessarily agree with each
other and there does exist in them obvious corruption in additions and deletions.
Additionally, they are not complete and do not have full agreement of the
scholars of the Bible as to their meanings.


Just to offer a few of the many contradictions and errors of that which is being
presented as the "Word of God" in the Bible I would like to quote the research
of scholars of the Bible:


VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THEMSELVES

Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 11:11 - Life limited to 120 years?

Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:20 - Jacob's life was preserved?

Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 - Who was God's firstborn?

Numbers 23:19 and Genesis 6:6-7 - Does God repent or not?

2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 - Did Michael have children?

2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 - 700 or 7000 horsemen?

2 Samuel 8:9-10 and 1 Chronicles 18:9-10 - Toi or Tou? Hadadezer or Hadarezer?
Joram or Hadoram?

2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 - 700 or 7000 charioteers? 40,000 horsemen
or footmen? Captain's name?

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 - Who provoked David?

2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 - 800,000 or 100,000?

2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - 7 or 3 years?

1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 - 40,000 or 4,000 stalls?

1 Kings 5:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 2:2 - 3300 or 3600?

1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 - 2000 or 3000 baths?

2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 - 22 or 42 years old?

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 - 18 or 8 years old? 3 months or 3 months and
10 days?

Ezra 2:65 and Nehemiah 7:67 - 200 or 245 singers?

Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 - Who was Salathiel's father?

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 - Who was Joseph's father?

Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not?

Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8 - Bring a staff or not?

Matthew 15:21-22 and Mark 7:24-26 - The woman was of Canaan or Greece?

Matthew 20:29-30 and Mark 10:46-47 - One or two beggars?

Matthew 21:1-2 and Mark 11:1-2 - What happened to the ass?

Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72 - Before the cock crow once or twice?

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 - How did Judas die?

John 3:16 and Psalms 2:7 - Only begotten son?

John 5:31 and John 8:14 - Was Jesus' record true or not?



VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE AND/OR THE DIVINITY OF JESUS


Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16 - No one saw God.

Isaiah 42:8 - Do not praise and worship images.

Isaiah 45:1 - "Anointed" does not mean "God".

Matthew 14:23, 19:13, 26:39, 27:46, 26:42-44 - Jesus prayed.

Matthew 24:36 - Jesus was not all-knowing.

Matthew 26:39 - Jesus and God had different wills.

Matthew 28:18 - All power was given to Jesus.

Mark 1:35, 6:46, 14:35-36 - Jesus prayed.

Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19 - Jesus denied divinity.

Mark 12:28-29 - God is one.

Mark 13:32 - Jesus was not all-knowing.

Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69 - Jesus at the right hand of God.

Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 9:28, 11:1-4, 22:41 - Jesus prayed.

Luke 4:18, 9:48, 10:16 - Jesus was from God.

Luke 7:16, 13:33, 24:18-19 - Jesus was a prophet.

Luke 10:21 - Jesus gave thanks.

Luke 23:46 - The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.

John 4:19 - Jesus was a prophet.

John 4:23-24 - Worship in spirit and truth.

John 14:28 - One was greater than the other.

John 5:19, 5:30, 7:28, 8:28 - Jesus was helpless.

John 5:20 - The Father showed the son.

John 5:30 and 6:38 - Jesus and God had different wills.

John 5:31-32 - Jesus' witness was not true.

John 6:11 and 11:41-42 - Jesus gave thanks.

John 6:32 - The Father was the provider, not the son.

John 7:29, 16:5, 16:28 - Jesus was from God.

John 7:16, 12:49, 14:24, 17:14 - Jesus' words were not his.

John 8:42 - Jesus did not come of himself.

John 10:29 - "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all."

John 14:1 - Jesus said, "...believe also in me."

John 14:16, 17:1, 17:9, 17:11, 17:15 - Jesus prayed.

John 14:31 and 15:10 - Jesus followed commands.

John 17:6-8 - "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me."

John 20:17 - Jesus had a god.

Acts 2:22 - Jesus was "a man approved of God."

Romans 8:34 - Jesus was an intercessor.

1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus was the mediator between God and humans.



Incidentally, these are really only some selections of contradictions and
inaccuracies found in the modern versions of the Bible. There are many more but
for the sake of time and space we have limited ourselves to those listed above.


Again I would like to repeat, the Muslim must believe in all original texts
coming from Almighty God. The only subject being discussed here is whether or
not the Bible being offered today in the English language is in fact, the real "Bible".


Chapter 3 "Who is the God of the Bible?"


"ONE" - SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY

Mark 10:6-9 and John 14:20, 15:1-7, 17:11, 17:18-23, 17:26

There are many verses in the Bible that speak of Jesus and God as being "one".

But does this necessarily mean that Jesus is God? If you read the six selections
above then you will see that we cannot take the word "one" so literally. If we
do, then we are God, as Jesus said, "...they also may be one in us" and "...they
may be one, even as we are one." What the Bible means when it says that Jesus is
"one" with God is that he is extremely close to god, "as if" they are one. John
17:18-23 tells how we normal human beings can attain this "oneness" (or "closeness")
with God by being "sanctified through the truth." Aside from this, neither the
word "trinity" appears anywhere in the Bible nor any explanation of such a thing.


"LORD" DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "GOD"

Matthew 18:23-34, Luke 19:11-21, and John 20:26-29

Many of Jesus' disciples referred to Jesus as "Lord". Even Jesus himself said
that he is their Lord. But does this mean that he is their God? If you read the
three short stories above then you will realize that back in the Biblical time
period most servants referred to their masters as "lord". This was a common
practice because it showed honor and respect for a person of such high stature.


"LORD" - A Lofty Title

Even today in many countries around the world such as England, "lord" is used in
referring to kings, princes, and others who deserve such a lofty title. The
disciples and followers of Jesus viewed him as their earthy master and
themselves as his servants. He was a man from God who brought them God's message
of truth, justice, and peace. Who could be more deserving of the title "lord"
than Jesus Christ? Besides, "lord" is defined by Webster in many curious ways.


A few of them are as follows:

A man of high rank in a feudal society.

A king.

A general masculine title of nobility or rank.

A man of renowned power.

A man who has mastery in a given activity or field.


Commenting on the word's history, Webster says that "lord" literally means 'guardian
of the bread'". He continues, "Since such a position would be the dominant one
in the household, lord came to denote a man of authority and rank in society at
large."


In The Holy Qur'an also uses "lord" in the same context (see 12:23 and 12:41-42).
This was simply the language of the time.


The word "lord" does not render the person which it is being applied to as God.
If this were the case, then many human beings in the Bible would have to be
considered God.


Chapter 4 "Does Bible Say 'Jesus is God'?"


JESUS DENIED DIVINITY


Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19

These verses are most indicative of Jesus' position and real nature. The verse
in Mark reads:

"As he [Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him,
and asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus
said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."


If you analyze this verse in truth you will see that Jesus, quite simply, is not
God. If he was, why then would he say "No one is good but God alone"? Jesus did
not want to be called "good" because he was not God. That title, as Jesus admits,
belongs to none but God.


Chapter 5 "What Does it all Mean?"


CONCLUSION

If all of this has confused you it's probably because you've been trying to
justify your belief in the Trinity. To believe in the Trinity goes against all
of the teachings of Jesus, as well as the Bible. This is because the Trinity is
a man-made doctrine that was drawn up several hundred years after Jesus. In this
time period different interpretations of the Bible were causing serious debates
among Christians. The various interpretations were, undoubtedly, due to human
perversion of the original scriptures, poor preservation, and/or shoddy
translations. One of the main things being questioned was the nature of God and
Jesus. Was Jesus actually God, the son of God, or just a messenger? The Council
of Nicea was formed in an attempt to settle this dispute, and the Nicea Creed (the
Trinitarian doctrine) was subsequently hammered out.


Again, as I stated in the beginning, this writing has not been complied to put
down or destroy the true teachings of the Bible and the Prophets. I would like
to quote from a version of the Bible wherein Jesus is represented as saying:

"Think not that I came to destroy the Law [Torah] and the Prophets [prophethood].
I did not come to destroy them, but rather to fulfill them. For truly, I say to
you, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments [from the Law] and
teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven; but he who does
them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell
you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you
will never enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matt. 5:17]


It is wrong to assume that our beliefs are true simply because our teachers,
preachers and parents have taught us something passed down to them by
generations of forefathers before them. What I would invite all of us to do is
to do research for ourselves and learn from reliable sources what is the origin
of modern Christianity and what should be our perspective on true belief in
general. We can only achieve this with open minds and hearts.


So, may the Great God of the Universe guide us all with His perfect Guidance to
all truth, ameen.


Chapter 6 "What to do Now?"


It is not at all logical to simply accept a belief system because it was passed
down to you by your parents. After all, what if it is not correct? A system for
belief should be based upon sound principles of reasoning and understanding,
rather than feelings and emotions.


As regards the Muslims treatment of Jesus, peace be upon him, it should be kept
in mind that, although they do not hold him to be the 'son of god' in
Christianity, he is definitely held in high esteem as great prophet, 'Miraculous
birth" and also believe in the same unseen God that he referred to as "Your Lord
and my Lord, your God and my God."


Please take time to read the articles on this site. Print them out and share
with others. Write to us and visit our website for more information about the
world's largest and most compatible religions; Islam and Christianity. Research
for yourself the Council of Nicea and the preservation of the Bible, or lack
thereof.


There are a number of books which are easily accessible written by experts and
scholars on the Bible which are very enlightening on this subject:


"Who Wrote the Bible" - Richard Elliott Friedman [excerpts]

"Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" - Norman Golb

"The Book of 'J'" - Harold Bloom & David Rosenberg

"The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, & Restoration" -
Bruce M. Metzger


Islam is truly and simply a complete way of life and set of rules taught by all
the prophets to mankind, similar to Biblical teachings that were revealed to
humankind after Jesus through the last and final prophet Muhammad.

Why? Good Question...

"That Prophet"?

By: Yusuf Estes


"Are you THAT Prophet?"

[Bible - John 1:20]


"The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto
you."

[Bible - John 14:26]


Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "A messenger will come after me,named Ahmad."

[Quran 61:6]


The chief priests and Levites asked John the Baptist, "If you are not the Christ
(Messiah), and not Elijah - are you THAT Prophet?"

[John 1:20]


When the chief priests and Levites asked John the Baptist who he was, they asked
him in a very strange way. First the questioned him as to whether or not he was
the anticipated "Messiah" [Christ in Koine Greek]. He was not the "Messiah" that
had hoped for. Next they asked if he was the prophet Elijah and again he tells
them, "No." Now comes the really strange part. Finally, they asked him if he is
"That Prophet?"

1. Are you Christ? - [No]

2. Are you Elijah? - [No]

3. Are you THAT Prophet? - [No]


What did they mean by "That Prophet?" We of course, know who the "Christ" is.
After all, Christians should know that "Christ" is merely a shortened form of
the Koine Greek word "christos," intended to mean the Hebrew word "Messiah."


The Jews of two thousand years ago were definitely looking for the Messiah, who
it was foretold in their books, would come and lead them to victory over their
oppressors and thus gain for them mastery over this world. They were very
oppressed under Roman domination and even their own Jewish kings were seen as
nothing more than puppets or agents for the disbelievers. Certainly, they would
have been most happy to see someone come on the scene who would defeat their
Roman masters and slave drivers.


Then the priests and Levites asked John the Baptist if he might be the prophet
Elijah, returning back after hundreds of years being away. There was the notion
amongst them that Elijah would come back. But again, John the Baptist is denying
he is Elijah.


Then, who is he? They wonder at this man living out in the desert and forsaking
wealth and luxury and fasting, avoiding the material attractions of life.


Again, they ask John the Baptist who he is. "Are you THAT Prophet?" And one more
time he denies being "THAT Prophet," but then he does tell them about someone
who will come after him soon, whom he claims he is not worthy to even unlace his
shoes.


However, this does not answer the question, "Who were they expecting besides the
Messiah?" Could it be they were looking for someone like Muhammad? (Could be)


Who is THAT Prophet? -


Keep reading and learn who "That Prophet" is and what other proofs can be
discovered within the Holy texts to support this idea.


For centuries Muslims have believed Jesus, peace be upon him, was "THAT Prophet"
mentioned in these words of the Gospel of John. The Quran states one of the
important features of Jesus' mission was to give the "bashir" or 'glad tidings'
of the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. During his short
missionary career that lasted not more than three years, and which was
overshadowed by the hostile attitude of his own people, Jesus gave them the good
news of Ahmad, (one of the forms of "Muhammad") the last messenger of God, who
would perfect the divine teaching both in theory and in practice. The Quran
mentions that, Jesus says:

"O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah {Almighty God} (sent) to you,
confirming the Law (Torah or Old Testament) before me, and giving glad tidings
of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." (Surah 61:6)


The Quran gives the name as Ahmad, one of several ways to say Muhammad's name.
Just as we have in English the name Joseph, and often use a shorter form such as
"Joe" or the familiar form, "Joey," and other names like "Jonathan" which
becomes "John"; "Jack" or "Johnny", so in the same way we find Arabic has
similar forms for a name. Muhammad, Ahmad and Hamad are a few of the names
originating from the root word, "hamd" (meaning 'praise) in Arabic, and can be
understood as "The one who praises (God)"; "the praised one"; "praising"; etc.


Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his translation of the meanings of the Quran to English,
he states, "Ahmad or Muhammad, the Praised One is a translation of the Koine
Greek word Periclytos. In the present gospel of John 14:16, 15:26 and 16:7, the
Greek word Paracletos is translated in the NIV as Comforter. Paracletos can mean
an Advocate, or "one called to the help of another", "a kind friend." Muhammad,
peace be upon him, was known from birth as one who brought comfort and
reconciliation to family, friends and strangers alike, especially in bringing
together the ties of kinship and brotherly love.


Another nick name of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, mentioned in the
Bible (or at least what is left of it in the English language) is "The Spirit of
Truth." As-Saddiq means exactly that and it is was another name given to
Muhammad, peace be upon him, by those who knew his proclivity for honesty and
integrity.


The New Testament Gospel according to John, Jesus, peace be upon him, promises
them the Paracletos will come four times (John 14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7).
Naturally, Jesus, peace be upon him, did not return in their lifetime nor did
any other prophet for that matter, so later thinkers came up with the notion
that it was not Jesus "in person" but rather, Jesus coming back in "spirit form."
This led some Christians to assert, this was to be the Holy Spirit, who would
descend upon the disciples on the Day of the Pentecost (Acts 2), to witness
Christ and lead them into the whole truth and to be with the believers forever,
and they would not die (John 3:16), but have everlasting life. Also, some added
verses later (see footnotes to Revised Standard Version of the Bible) to the
very last chapter of Mark (16), wherein, they have the Spirit coming upon them
in such a way they imagined themselves going to be able to speak with new
languages; pick up snakes, lay hands on the sick to cure them and even drink
poison and nothing would hurt them. [Luke 23:17-18]


Another point is, the Paracletos, comforter or the Spirit of truth, was going to
dwell with us from now on. Certainly anyone could see Muhammad's influence and
his message of worshipping only One God without any partners has prevailed long
after his earthly life.