An Interview Between the Bible and Quran?

the-koran-vs-the-bible

There’s a write-up titled “Interview: Bible and Qur’an Each to Prove Itself” I came across recently and I want to use it to illustrate how weak and silly islamic reasoning can be.

What is your name? Bible: I don’t know! Quran: my name is Quran (Sura 36:2 ‘By the Quran, full of wisdom’)

This reveals the ignorance of the writer. The Bible refers to itself as “the book of the Law” (Josh. 1:8), “the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29), “the book of the Lord” (Isa. 34:16) and “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 5:17).

The word ‘Bible’ is from the Greek word ‘Biblio’ which simply means ‘Book’.

The Quran refers to the Bible as “the Book” (2:101) or “the Torah [Law]…[and] the Injil [Gospel]” (5:46). Note: the Quran’s reference to itself in Sura 36:2 is to the oral recitations since it wasn’t existing in book form at the time.

Where did you come from? Bible: from people. Quran: from Allah (Sura 45:2 ‘The revelation of the Book is from Allah…’)

The Bible says it is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) and “the Word of the Lord” (Ps. 33:4). The Quran in Sura 45:15 says “I believe in the Book (of the people of the Book [Bible]) which God has sent down.”

It also calls the Bible “a testimony from Allah” (2:140) “the Criterion of right and wrong” (21:48) “a guide and mercy” (46:12) “book from God” (3:22).

This is where the inconsistency of Islam rears its head. The same Bible Muslims assail is approved as God-inspired by their own Quran.

This poses a dilemma for them because to accept what the Quran says about the Bible is to reject it, since it contradicts the Bible.

Muslims weasel their way out of this pit by claiming that: One, the Bible the Quran talks about is lost and two, the Bible has been corrupted.

These two claims are false and insipid. To assert that the Quran is divine but the Bible is not, is dishonest, incoherent and intellectual suicide.

Did you (Bible) tell your people to go to church on Sunday and you (Quran) tell your people to go to mosques on Friday? Bible: No. Quran Yes (Sura 62:9 ‘O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten…)

There is a sleight-of-hand trick here by Quranic translators. A more accurate version says “…When the call is heard for the prayer of the day of congregation…”

The Arabic says yawmi al-jumuati meaning “day of assembly”. The word “Friday” is not in the text, but Ali, Hilali, Shakir and Khalifa inserted Friday into their own versions. Why? Because Islam is based more on the hadiths.

Most of its major rites are not in the Quran. For instance, there is no Quranic verse about the rite of circumcision, the tawaff, Hijra ceremonies, stoning the Devil, kissing the stone or use of “prayer beads.”

If this writer has read John 20:1, Acts 20:7 or 1 Corinthians 16:2 and the reasons Christians observe Sunday but still insists on his claim, his blindness deserves an award.

Did you call your religion Christianity and your religion Islam? Bible: No. Quran: Yes (Sura 6:125 ‘Those whom Allah willeth to guide – He openeth their breasts to Islam)

The Muslim is committing a fallacy of equivocation here. He is importing his own Islamic worldview into the Bible, sorry, it won’t fit in. Christianity is a not a religion, it’s a personal relationship with a Living Saviour, Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Islam is an impersonal religion based on observing some rituals and blindly emulating a man long dead and gone.

The word translated as “Islam” here is “lilislami” which means “submission” – it’s referring to a concept rather than a fully developed religion – which Islam wasn’t at the time.

While Allah says in Sura 6:125 that he decides who becomes Muslim, Sura 3:85 says that those who reject Islam will go to hell. Is this a sane belief? I think not.

It’s like a teacher saying to his students, “I alone decide who will pass or fail my subject. Whether you study or not, it depends on my decision, but if you fail my subject, you must be expelled!” Won’t you suggest such a teacher is taken to a mental facility? Yet this is the plan of the god of the Quran.

Is the word ‘Trinity’ existed in you? Bible: No. Quran: Yes (Sura 4:171 ‘Say not ‘Trinity’: desist…)

So the Quran is divine because it has the word ‘Trinity’? What an inane argument! Note that the word “Trinity” is not in the Arabic text.

A more accurate translation says “…and say not ‘Three’ Cease!…” The Arabic word for Holy Trinity is al-thaaluuth al-aqdas, but this text has thalaathatun which means “Three”.

If Allah says we must not say “three”, why then does the word occur in the Quran (2:196, 2:228, 3:41, 4:3)?

What amuses me is how Muslims like to attack the many English translations of the Bible whilst pretending as if there are no conflicting English translations of their Quran.

[Note: Having realized that this is the most stupid argument in their playbook, Muslims have now replaced this with the following]:

Why do you have so many scientific errors? Bible because l’ve made many many silly mistakes. eg. I said that “the rabbit chew its cud”(Leviticus 11:6)

Quran: I don’t have a single scientific error. e.g I said that “moon light is a reflected or borrowed light from the sun” therefore I am compatible with modern science (sura 25:61).

This is extolling the “scientific accuracy” of the Quran and an alleged scientific error in the Bible. A fruitless undertaking.

By way of reply. In Lev. 11:6, the Bible makes reference to rabbits that “chew cud” even though they don’t chew cuds like ruminants. They undergo what is termed “reflection” in which they take up their dung and chew on it to get out partially digested food which they re-chew.

The Hebrew word for “chew” there is “alah” which means to bring up. It’s rendered elsewhere as “brought up” (Jos. 24:17) and “offering up” (1 Sam. 7:10).

The word for cud, “gerah” means grain or berry of low value, which hints at reflection in rabbits but the nearest English word the translator could use was “chewing the cud.”

The Binomial classification of living organisms was formulated by Biologists in the 19th century, so to expect an ancient writing to conform to such late categories defies all logic.

Now what does Sura 25:61 says?

Blessed is He who made constellation in skies and placed therein a lamp (sun) and a moon giving light.”

Notice, what the text says obviously differs from what the “scientific miracle” disciple wants his readers to believe.

Another spoof there is that the Arabic word “noor” used here for the moon means “direct light” which is scientifically wrong, whereas the word for an object emitting light is “munir.”

When you have to resort to bare-faced lies to promote your religious book, then it only reveals that your religion can only spread by lies.

Why do you contradict yourself in many places? Bible: because I came from people and no man is perfect. Quran: I have no single contradiction (Sura 4:82 ‘…Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction’)

Here the Muslim is appealing to the prejudice of his readers “why do you contradict yourself in many places” such as…? As for the Quran:

Who takes the soul at death? Is it the angel of death (32:11), angels generally (47:27) or Allah (39:42)?

How many days did it take Allah to destroy Aad? A day (54:19) or several days (41:16, 69:6,7)?

Sura 52:25 says there will be “mutual enquiry” in paradise while Sura 23:101 says the exact opposite “neither will they question one another”.

Sura 3:42-45 tell us several angels appeared to Mary while Sura 19:17-21 say it’s just one angel.

Sura 10:92 says Pharaoh was spared while Sura 28:40 and 17:103 say he drowned.

Suras 39:73, 4:30 and 57 and 21 say there will be only one garden in paradise, yet to our amazement, Suras 18:31, 22:23 and 35:33 say there will be many gardens there.

Even on the question of what man was created from is confused. Sura 96:1-2 says man was made from blood clots, Sura 21:30 says it’s water, Sura 11:61 says from earth, yet Sura 19:67 says we are made from “nothing!”

On the basis on Sura 4:82, we therefore declare the Quran as wholly man-made.

Why do you allow people to keep changing you? Bible: because they made me “How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of God is with us? Lo certainly in vain made he it: the pen of the scribes is in vain” (Jer 8:8). Quran: no one can change me (Sura 85:21-22)

The Muslim writer is assuming what he is yet to prove. He has not presented any evidence that the Bible “keeps changing” while his Quran has been well preserved.

This is what prejudice does to the mind over a long period of time. It has a blunting effect. This is why it takes an extremely prejudiced person to support the above myth with Jeremiah 8:8 when its very next verse says:

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo they have rejected the word of the Lord: and what wisdom is in them.”

Verse 9 has a logical connection to the statement in vs 8. It’s not saying the Bible is being changed, but rather, because the people had rejected the Word of the Lord, even if the scribes wrote more copies for them, it is in vain.

Muslims are taught that their Quran descended hot from heaven and the original tablet is still in paradise. But if we take the Quran to determine who brought it to earth, we end up being confused.

Sura 2:97 says Gabriel brought it. Sura 16:102 says it’s the Faithful Spirit, sura 15:8 says  angels (plural) brought it and Sura 81:19-24 says it’s Allah himself and that Muhammad saw him.

According to the Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (ed. Cyril Classe 1989, 123), the Quran was preserved on “pieces of papyrus, flat stone, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather, wooden boards and the hearts of men.”

If the Quran descended from heaven, then Muslims will have to explain why there are no better materials on which writings can be preserved in their “heaven.”

The fact is, the Quran was written and compiled down here on earth and it was even poorly done that majority of its parts were lost before it could be collected into a book. The men who memorized it lost their heads at the battle of Yemama after Muhammad’s death.

According to Caesar Farah, “When Muhammad died there existed no singular codex of the sacred text” (Islam: Beliefs and Observations, New York, 1987, 28).

The interview is over, the Bible stays.

‘For Ye Are Gods?’ Refuting A Heresy

download

The idea that men are gods or can become gods dates back to eastern religions. Some church fathers succumbed to this delusion. Athanasius of Alexandria for example, wrote: “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.”

Eastern Orthodoxy adheres to this, that through divine energies, man will become gods (theosis). This can be achieved by living in the church community, receiving the sacraments and contemplation.

Mormons also believe if they adhere well to their religion, they will will become gods after death, with each Mormon man having a planet and goddess wives for eternal procreation.

A variation of this is also taught by some Christian preachers, that Believers are “little gods” having the power to exercise the God-kind of faith to create or call things forth into existence. Does the Bible support this idea? No.

The Bible teaches that there is only one God (Dt. 4:35-39, Is. 43:10, 44:6-8) and and no one can be like Him (Ps. 10:2, Isa. 40-46, Acts 17:24-28). This alone refutes the idea of men becoming gods or a replica of God.

Some Bible texts used as support are:

1. Psalm 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High.”

From vs. 1, we see a clear distinction is made between God the Creator and the created beings called “gods” and that God had the power to judge them. The word, elohim also means “magistrates” (Strong #430).

In Exodus 22:8-9, Judges 5:8-9, Israel’s judges or rulers were called “gods” because they were God’s representatives appointed and commissioned by Him on earth to speak in His name (Dt. 1:17, 2 Chr. 19:6, Rom. 13:1-2).

Ps. 82: 7 says “But you will die like men.” This is referring to corrupt judges or rulers condemned by God for their wickedness. They were “gods,” not in the strictest sense but by their derived authority.

Jesus quoted this Psalm in John 10:34-35 to show the unbelieving Jews that if even wicked judges are called “gods” His designation as God’s Son is valid.

He wasn’t saying His listeners (or Christians) were gods. In fact, He said to them “You are of your father the devil” (Jn. 8:44).

2. Genesis 1:26-27 “Let us make man in our image (tselem).”

It’s argued that since we are made in God’s image, we are also gods. But if this proves man to be a replica of God it must also prove that God is an exalted man – which is false since God is not a man (Num. 23:19).

The “image” or “likeness” refers to a representative figure or similtude of God in moral and spiritual qualities – not as an exact replicate of God. He didn’t call us to be gods but instead to be godly.

Jesus Christ is in a unique sense, the “image of the invisible God” while Christians are spiritually conformed to His image (Col. 1:15, Rom. 8:29).

3. Galatians 4:6-7 “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

It is argued that because we are sons of God like Jesus, we are also gods, or as it is popularly said: ‘Man begets man and God begets gods.’ One popular preacher even wrote: “Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God.” This is rank heresy.

The sonship of believers is not a reproduction of God’s essence, because we are not “natural” sons of God. Our sonship is by adoption (Rom. 8:15, 23, Gal. 4:5).

On the other hand, Jesus is the “only unique” (or begotten) Son of God (Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:9). That means we are not sons of God in the same sense that Christ is the Son of God, nor will we ever be.

Jesus Himself distinguished between His Sonship and that of His followers (Jn. 20:17). It is the new birth that makes us sons of God – not as a conversion of men into gods, but a regeneration by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit resulting in a relationship with God as Father.

4. 2 Peter 1:4 “ye might be partakers of the divine nature

It is also asserted that being partakers of the divine nature implies that Christians are gods. But the Bible shows that when we become born again, we receive a new nature (2Cor 5:17).

This divine “nature” must not be conflated with divine “essence” which makes God who He is.

We receive this nature in regeneration, when the Holy Spirit dwells in us and enables us to walk in the newness of life. The rest of the verse (which is seldom included) tells us this nature is to “escape the corruption in the world.”

And as you read on further to verses 5-11, you will see that the context of that passage is about walking in holiness – not becoming “gods.”

Scripture becomes clearer when we study it by ourselves, rather than relying on false teachers who misuse it.

The prideful lie that men can become gods was the same one Satan used to deceive Eve and its variants are preserved in many religions today, including New Age cults. It appeals to men’s arrogance and pumps them up, while demeaning God.

Allah on the Crosschair of History

The claim that the “Allah” of Islam is the Arabic name for the God of the Bible is being popularized by some interfaith movements.

Some Arabic and Turkish translations of the New Testament produced by the Wycliffe Society and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) have even gone to the extent of removing words like “Father”, “Son” and “the Son of God” used in reference to the Triune God of the Bible replacing them with terms like “Allah” and “Messiah.”

For example, in Matthew 28:19 which says “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit“, their translation reads:

Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

This aberration has attracted protest e-mails and letters from many Christian websites and periodicals to the translators to correct this spurious redaction.

The Wycliffe organization posted a response on its website which I can only describe as a toe-dancing of the issues.

To show how illegitimate and blasphemous it is to associate Yahweh with the “Allah” of Islam, I will quote different scholars pointing out the pagan origins of the “Allah” of Islam:

1. “Allah: perceived in pre-islamic times as the creator of the earth and water though not at that time considered monotheistically.
Allat: Astral and tutelary goddess. Pre-Islamic … one of the 3 daughters of Allah” (Encyclopedia of Gods, Michael Jordan, 1993, p. 11)

2. “Before Islam, the religions of the Arabic world involved the worship of many spirits called jinn. Allah was but one of the many gods worshipped in Mecca. But then Muhammad taught the worship of Allah as the only God, whom he identified as the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews” (A Short History of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, p. 130).

3. “The verses of the Qur’an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they call ‘Allah’ and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods … It is therefore clear that the Qur’anic conception of Allah is not entirely new” (A Guide to the Contents of the Qur’an, Faruq Sherif, 1985, pp. 21-22)

4. “The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia” (Dr Arthur Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958, p. 85)

5. “Islam owes the term ‘Allah’ to the heathen Arabs. We have evidence that it entered into numerous personal names in Northern Arabia and among the Nabateans” (Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not A Muslim, Prometheus Book, 1995, p. 42)

6. “The origin of this [Allah] goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning ‘God’ (or a god), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, I:326)

7.”‘Allah’ is a pre-Islamic name … corresponding to the Babylonian Bel” (Encyclopedia of Religion, eds Paul Meagher, Thomas O’ Brian, Washington D.C: Corpus Pub., 1979, 1:117)

8. “The use of the phrase ‘the Lord of this house’ ([Sura] 106:3) makes it likely that those Meccans who believed in Allah, as a high god – and they may have been numerous – regarded the Kaaba as his shrine even though there were images of other gods in it. There are stories in the sira of pagan Meccans praying to Allah while standing beside the image of Hubal” (Muhammad’s Mecca, Montgomery W. Watt, 1953, p. 39).

9. “Within the Ka’aba, in pre-Moslem days, were several idols representing gods. One was called Allah … three others were Allah’s daughters – al-Uzza, al-Lat, and Manat. We may judge the antiquity of this Arab pantheon from the mention of Al-il-Lat (Al-Lat) by Herodotus [5th century BC Greek historian] as a major Arabian deity. The Quraish [Muhammad’s tribe] paved the way for monotheism by worshiping Allah as chief god; He was presented to the Meccans as the Lord of their soil to Whom they must pay a tithe of their crops and the first-born of their herds” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, 1959, IV:160-161)

10. “There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews” (Caesar Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observations. New York, 1987, p. 28).

The evidence of history proves that the “Allah” worshipped in Islam is a revamped pagan deity. Therefore, it’s slanderous to identify the God of the Bible with him.