Well it's like this. I believe the Bible is the actual word of God. I believe he left it here using human authors and witnesses to give to us. The Apostles warned us quite consistently NOT to look elsewhere. They all said that Satan is trying his best to convolute scripture and bring in other doctrines. They warned us about heresy. Not to fall for it. You can read 1 John and Colossians as two good books on that, but it's all over the NT. Actually it's all over the OT as well. Only then it was heathen nations trying to infiltrate Israel with their idol worship and all that went with it.

I refuse to look elswhere because I've been elsewhere and I know that for the most part is all the same. It's to take us away from biblical doctrine. Alot of the cults do the same. They all have their "prophets" and they all have their extra biblical books. Quite often these "special prophets" have visions not unlike Muhummed did in the cave. If you look really close you start to see similarities. Only it's not coming from the same God as the Bible speaks of.

We always must test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. When I look at Islam with their history and even now with their persecution of Christianity I don't have far to go to test the spirit here. Islam has been propagated by the sword and there is no denial of that. Christianity has been propagated by Love and we know that God is Love.

We've been told to look elswhere since the Garden of Eden when Satan via the snake said to plant the seeds of doubt in Eve's mind...."Did God really say?"

I'm not falling for it. Been there, done that.

and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away

You read this and YOU inject other qulifiers between the words so you can say he didnt put the child on her shoulder. When i read the words without that, it says simply " putting it on her shoulder, and the child..." if it wasn't on her shoulder then "and the child .... what?"

please always remeber that i am not trying to descridt the Bible. It is one of God's book. The problem is it was not written in complete form and it was written 100 yrs or more after Jesus. and human input rendered it not very clear and confuse the words of God with human words. That is all. all these are details and i said that many times. and puts shadows on God's words.

This is really the reason i dont want to discuss these points because it is certainly not God's words that is the source of these issues.

Lot wasn't a prophet. Where do you get that he was?

Yes he was, God sent the angels to him and led him and his family out before destroying the city. God doesn't send Angels to destroy cities and lead just regular good believing humans out before doing that. Only He does that with prophets. if you believe otherwise, then that is your belief. i cant argue with that. He is to Abraham as Aaron to Moses. not a messenger but a prophet, like Joseph and Isaac and Jacob ..etc. He was the prophet for that city. I dont know how you missed Gen 21, it says "He said to him 'very well, i grant you this favor too ....' " . who is "He"? before that it always referred to the angels as "they" now it says "He" isn't that God speaking with Lot? again it depends how you read the text, and is the point. all this is making the book subject to many versions of understanding. Gen 22 says "hurry, escape there ,for "I" can do nothing until you arrive there" and Gen 24 says "then The Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur ....." . it is clear from that that the "He" and the "I" is referring to the Lord isnt it? God speaks only to prophets. That is the way I look at it.

Another point that is also strange in this is that the bible is silent about what Lot did when his daughters got pregnant. Now if you read the same story in Qura'an it clearly says that he was a prophet and it did not mention that incident at all. also Qura'an praises him and honer him greatly in God's words. God will never honer a person who gets drunk and commits incest like that.

what is very interesting here is this : If Qura'an was not God's words, why did Mohammad write these stories that way and not the way they are in the Bible? what interest did mohammad have in changing the story and make someone like lot a "prophet"?

From what you wrote here I have to say, it's not the bible but your understanding of it that is the issue.

of course, but our understanding comes from the text, we cant just make things up. i think that is what you are doing. the text should stand on its own, no injection of qualifiers to make it the way we wish.

the words of god are sacred and should be understood using the rules of the language it is revealed in.

in the Bible that i have has notes at the bottom of the page explaining the meaning of certain words. Now, these notes clearly indicates that there is a big problem there. these notes use words like Gk ... Heb... or meaning uncertain or the word means something and in the text they put something else.

Here is another thing: In Psalm 2.7 ".... you are my son today, i have begotten you..."

now you also say that Jesus is also God's son, so how many sons of God are there? or is it a problem in the translation and/or human verbalization of Gods words who made it that way.

I dont mean to undemine anyone's understanding of the book that he/she believes in, all i am saying if you really looking for the truth look at all God's words not just one of them.

You and I dont differ on many basic issues. except the fact that i read both books and i found it very helpful in clearing many logical points.

I'm not falling for it. Been there, done that.

wish you the best in your journey. just remember what i said about looking for the truth. it is not an easy journey and more information always help.

it couldn't have been written that much after his death. It was written by eyewittness accounts or dictated by eyewitness accounts. The gospels were most likely written 20-30 years after his death. We know Luke wrote Luke. Right in the first chapter we see he was going by eyewitness accounts. We know Mark wrote Mark dictated by Peter. Matthew also was an eyewitness. John as well.

How could this be 100 yrs later. They were not living that old at the time.



Then you have to ask yourself...what is a prophet? Did Lot fit this description? If you are honest you'll say no. Compare to Ezek, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Daniel etc who were all declared prophets. A prophet warned, and wrote about the future. Lot did not. Besides God spared and protected others and that did not make them prophets either. Rahab comes to mind and she was a prostitute.



All you're saying here is you accept the Quran's version. As you can see they both differ. So how can they "both" be God's books? Follow the trail...again, test the spirits. Look into those two children born to Lot. Notice we never hear of Lot again. So you're right. Lot turned out not so good at the end. God didn't honor or bless him after that. Again, look at the baby boys born. Do you notice anything?



Remember when the Quran was written. Take that into account. The bible was already written. The OT was well finished and cannonized well before Muhummad was even born. So who do you think is behind these writings? Test the spirits. You'll see when you trace the lineage of those babies you'll find they were enemies to Israel later on. Big enemies. So you do the logic. What do you think?



I actually read this last night. Go to Colosians 1:18 and you'll see that Jesus is the first born of the dead. Paul also says this in Acts 13:33

"God has fulfilled the same to us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."



One son. Jesus. He was talking about what was about to come. It's a prophetic psalm and also a royal one.



I don't see you as undermining really. I think you're misunderstanding only. I believe as I said, the bible is the only word of God. The rest are all forgeries. They all came after the bible was written to undermine it, to confuse the people and we know who is the master of that.

But I do think we do differ on the basics if you are believing the Quran as your go to book. The most important essential we could not beieve in would be that Jesus was God in the Flesh. The Quran does not teach that. Both books contradict each other. I could give you lots of stuff on this. Just Jesus being God is a biggie. One says yes. One says no.

It was written by eyewittness accounts or dictated by eyewitness accounts. The gospels were most likely written 20-30 years after his death

I am talking about the whole book not just parts of it. And even that is still 20-30 years and are not from Jesus himslef.

Here is a quote from the preface of the bible i have: " it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provide a satisfactory restoration {of the original text]"

There is no question about the fact that not all the words in the bible are the actual "words of God", or even the actual words of Jesus himsel. it is at best an "eye witness accounts" as you put it yourself.

Compare that to the way Qura'an was documented: It was dictated by Mohammad himself to his scribers right after revelation and were written on sheep skin and paper. Not only that, they were memorized, word for word by them and for over 23 years they reviewd what they wrote and what they memorized with him. after his death, all the documents were collected and written in one complete volume that was reviewed by all the scribers and the memorizers. the final copy was then copied four more times. the original was kept in the prophet's mosque and the other four were distributed to the main regions of the state: Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Some of these five copies still exist and to this day each print of any Qura'an must be checked against one of these copies by certain authorized agencies in the Muslim world. That is why you will never find a single authentic print of Qura'an differs from another.

Now, regardless of whether anyone believes that these are the words of God or not, no one doubts that they are the words that Mohammad said were the words of God.

All you're saying here is you accept the Quran's version. As you can see they both differ. So how can they "both" be God's books? Follow the trail...again, test the spirits

when i compare the two versions of the story the one in qura'an is logical while the one in the bible is not. Lot to Abraham was like Aaron to Moses, he can't just do this and just disappear. considering the way the Bible was written you can see which one is more reliable. Which book i go by is not the issue here, the issue is when something sounds incomplete or illogical we must look for the missing parts not just test the spirits. If you rely on Spirits then there is no use in discussing anything really. and as you said they could be Evil spirits too. so as regular humans, not prophets or messengers, we can only rely on logic and consistency and reliability of the source not on Spirits.

Paul also says this in Acts 13:33

That is the point, Paul says that. not Jesus. paul was not a prophet or a messenger from God.

He was talking about what was about to come. It's a prophetic psalm and also a royal one.

The words "this day" and "thee" don't mean anything? Paul is saying that was a prophetic statemnet while the statement itself indicates that it is directed at some one present at that "day" not in the future. and you go with Paul. then it is a matter of preference not logic and understanding.

I think you're misunderstanding only. I believe as I said, the bible is the only word of God. The rest are all forgeries

I know what i understand and what i don tunderstand. and you sure can believe what you prefer, but claiming that others are forgeries to justify your position is a claim you can't support with any eveidence. Just saying it doesnt make it so. The proof is in the puding as they say

Both books contradict each other. I could give you lots of stuff on this. Just Jesus being God is a biggie.

Of course they do, but when one book say Jesus is God, and then it says he is a Son of God and all that not from Jesus but from an eye witness, and even that eyewitness is not exactly quoated or translated, while the other book say he was a messenger and the words are from the man who recieved them. then you can see the difference in reliability.

But as a practical matter, what difference does it make, except of course as a personal visualization of God, whetehr Jesus was a God, Son of God or a messenger? what matters is what he said as morals and guidelines for people. And in that i don't find much difference at all. If we disagree on what was Jesus exactly, God Himself promised that He will be the Judge of that when we meet him. So this point that you consider major, i dont see it as a point that affects the main thing which is: what are the guidelines of a human to live by in order for God to be pleased which him/her? In that I dont find much difference at all between the three religions.

ok, let's do that shall we....not that I think you're really interested in truth, but heck, I'll give it a shot...one last time.

Any reader of the Quran familiar with the OT discovers that the names and events of OT books and prophets are very definitely copied in the Quran. Often the stories in the Quran are garbled and confused. Muhammad must have heard these stories from his Jewish friends in Medina. His 7th wife Raihana and ninth wife were Jews. Did you know this? His first wife Khadija had a Christian background as well as his 8th wife. They most likely shared with him much of the OT and NT with him.

I read the thoughts of a now Arab Christian, a Palestinian whose own father was killed by the Jews in Palestine, on Muhammad. He said after studying the Quran he thought it was composed by Muhammad who was trying to collect and edit his prose and poems before publishing them before he died unexpectantly. He said there is hardly a single complete narrative on any given topic recorded in one Surat. Instead bits and pieces are recorded here and there. Surely if God speaks only Arabic and sent down the Quran from heaven in Arabic he would certainly have used more discretion, better organization and sequence of facts and events...(as is the bible).

There are many passages in the so-called inspired Quran which originally appeared in the OT more than 1000 years before Muhammad was even born. I can give you many examples easily.

His teachings concerning God, creation, Adam and Eve, sin, the fall, angels, heaven, hell, Abraham, Moses, the Jews, and prophets had alredy been revealed and proclaimed in the OT. Muhammad added nothing new. His revelations were in no way superior to the revelatioons given to the earlier prophets. The truth had been revealed and taught for centuries before the birth of Muhammad.

One of the perplexing statements in the Quran cannot be a divine one. It is the Quranic declaration that Alexander the Great was a prophet. How can a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his death at 33 be considered a prophet? He was closer to the anti-christ than prophet. But then again, remember Muhammad thought he himself was possessed. We cannot forget this. Who would consider Alexander a prophet? God or Satan?

Numerous passages in the Quran so closely parallel passages in the NT which is 600 years older than the Quran that one can safely conclude that Muhammad borrowed some of the content of his revelations from the truly inspired text of the NT scriptures and I can give you examples of these also.

Ask yourself this. What was Muhammad doing between the time he married Khadija and his prophetic call, a period of 15 years? You may want to do some HW on Buhaira a Nestorian monk and Waraqa ibn Nofal, considered to be Muhammad's uncle and was a Nestorian. Check into what the Nestorians believed and compare to the Quran.

Muslims believe Arabic is the language of Allah. They believe the Quran is perfect in the Arabic language. Many Muslims memorize the Quran in Arabic for this reason. But get this......Muhammad used a number of foreign words or phrases in the Quran, leaving questioners wondering if "God's language" is deficient because he needed help from other languages.

1. "Pharoah" comes from the Egyptian langauge. It is repeated 84 times in the Quran.

2. "Adam" and "Eden" are Accadian words. Adam in Arabic would be "basharan" or insan" meaning mankind. "Eden" could be the Arabic "janna" or garden. Why weren't they used instead?

3. "Abraham" comes from the Assyrian language, and would be better represented in the Arabic, "Abu Raheem."

4. "Gospel" comes from the Gk "Injil" and the correct Arabic is "bisharah."

There's more even. I won't even get into grammer. But if you really want to check into this you will see poor grammer in the Quran. So much for your perfect book.

How can one God send two clashing revelations, the Bible and The Quran? Is it to confuse us? The bible is not confusing nor contradictory. The evidence is very clear that the Quran is both. If Muslims insist that the Bible is corrupt, I will have to say that the evidence vindicates the Bible and condemns the Quran. Any reasonable person who is really looking for the truth presented with the evidence cannot believe otherwise. It's all there. One just has to put their presuppositions aside and search for the truth.

It's there, but do you really want to know? Or do you really just want your group?

It is the Quranic declaration that Alexander the Great was a prophet

This a completely false statement and I challenge you and you friend to point to that verse. you relying on hearsay not on critical reading of the book itself. just like there are people who say the Bible is just a collection of history and not from God, there are also people who say the same about Qura'an.

Qura'an is not interested in history and family lineage as the current Bible is, it is the words of God for guidence through life as the words of God were to all his prophets. God is not a historian. but for each story you mentioned the narrative there is enough to give you the main point intended not to give you a lesson in history.

Muhammad used a number of foreign words or phrases in the Quran, leaving questioners wondering if "God's language" is deficient because he needed help from other languages

if this is your logic, i guess no point in trying to explain it to you. If God uses the name of people or things as they were known to the people at the time, He is deficient?

we should check all sources ourselves not from a second hand source, that is all i said about searching for the truth. , then you reach what conclusion you like. I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another.

fair enough. I will gladly do this for you. Check Surat al-Kahf (The Cave) 18:83-100.

I found this as well.

It is almost universally held, among Western scholars, that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn corresponds to Alexander the Great. The reason for this is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources, which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander the Great, although competing theories have been proposed, some recently (see Dhul-Qarnayn for details). Orientalist scholars, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, independently came to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is an ancient epithet for Alexander the Great. As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

Ibn Ishaq's original work is lost, but it has been almost completely incorporated in Ibn Hisham, another early Muslim historian. Ibn Hisham collected Ibn Ishaq's Sira and added his notes to it; in regards to Dhul-Qarnayn, Ibn Hisham noted:

"Dhu al-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnayn [meaning, 'the two-horned one']..."
The theme, amongst Islamic scholars, of identifying Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great appears to have originated here. Why Ibn Hisham made this identification is not entirely clear. Aristotelian Muslim philosophers, such as al-Farabi, Avicenna, and al-Kindi enthusiastically embraced the concept of Dhul-Qarnayn being an ancient Greek king. They stylized Dhul-Qarnayn as a Greek philosopher-king.

you can read more about the similarities to Alexander the Great here:

WWW Link

see you don't understand the bible. The family lineages were mentioned as PROOF. It helped give credibility to the scriptures. Names, dates and places were very prominent as proof. You don't see that in the Quran. Nothing can be nailed down or proven because these things are omitted. Many of the names and places in the bible have been found or dug up in the field of archeology. Even some things or events thought to be questionable were later deemed true after all.

So instead of knocking geneologies you should be digging into them to see exactly how they all fit together and the reason for them. It's actually an amazing study. Compare the geneology to say....Abraham in Genesis to Christ in Luke Chap 3.

As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

and that proves that Qura'an identifies him as Alexander? these are people talking, no muslim regardless of his/her location ever thought of Zul-Qarnayn as alexander. now you can see what human input does when it gets between God's words. Qura'an speaks in clear terms, if this was Alexander it would have said so like it identified The Romans, and Persians.

I am afraid that the idea of human input within God's words is not a no-no to you. for Muslims it is. all interpretitions are just that, only the words of Mohammad and that of Qura'an are the ones that count, not anyone else.

Compare the geneology to say....Abraham in Genesis to Christ in Luke Chap

is that how you look in the bible for? i dont.

It is gods words and guidence that i am looking for. if He says Jesus is a descendent of Abraham, i believe it , i dont need a proof of that. the question is do i believe that it is His words or not? if i do then i dont need other proofs.
what matters is the rules and philosophy behind those rules. not the geneology. and the philosophy and the rules are the ones who make me believe it is the words of God or not based on their logic and consistencey.

That is the way i look at it. you can look at it any way you like. that is what belief is. it is a personal conviction, and each of us reaches what is convincing to him/her.

Well the evidence backs it all up. God never expected us to have a blind faith. He opens our eyes to the truth. Our faith is built on what he's revealed to us. Yes it is more blessed to believe and not see but there are many out there that need to see so they can believe.

God has given us every opportunity to believe in him so we cannot go to him in that day and say he didn't do enough. He gave us all we need to know to believe in him.

I found this and thought you may want to check it out. It's a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian. One defended the Quran and one the bible and many points were brought up some that we've mentioned and some that we haven't touched on. In place of Matt you could put me because I agreed with all he said here.

WWW Link

and here's another one:

WWW Link

But I just showed you that Islamic Scholars attributed this to Alexander. They are Muslims...no?

But I just showed you that Islamic Scholars attributed this to Alexander. They are Muslims...no?

yes they are, and they can think what they like. but God's words are God's words. and that is exactly my point that i pointed out to you many many times but you choose to ignore it. Human input in God's word can and many time will misrepresent what He say. and this is a clear exmple. there are many references in Qura'an about unidentified individuals and main-stream muslim scholars never try to identify them. Their position is very logical and it is this : "Qura'an is very specific in some areas and not in others. God does not need help from humans to identify what He did not".

The problem is that you take the human input in the bible as valid as God's or His prophets' words. Muslims don't.

Even if the prophet himself is reported to say something that is not in line with what Qura'an clearly says, Qura'an rules. only when it is not specific that the prophet's words become the rule.

No ONE else have any authority beyond those two sources and in that order.

so dont tell me so an so said such and such.

Qura'an is the ruling words not humans. for more than 1200 yrs now that is the position of the main four muslim scholars and they are : Abu Hanifa, Elshafei, Malik and Ibn Hanbal

even these four scholars themselves said their words could be wrong if someone else could use qura'an to prove that. they were just trying their best to interpret what God said, but they realize that they could be wrong. see how careful they were in their treatment of God's words? and you take historical and religious thoughts and narratives from people who were just eyewitnesses 20-30 years after the facts as God's word?

That is a far cry between the reliability of the two sources.

One defended the Quran and one the bible

it is very amusing really. i thought we trying to discuss things in a serious way.

you have a person taht says that he is no scholar and he doesn't know whether this a verse or not and you refering me to that?

more over, God's revelation and words are proved by the fact it was accompanied by miracles? if there was a miracle then it is god, if there were none then it is not? dont you urself said Satan himself can do miracles also? magicians do that too. dont they?

what a way to prove that certain words are from God or not.

i think your bar for this kind of judgement is very low.

the higher bar is logic and consistency. not miracles. and if you really want miracles, it is between your hands. Qura'an ITSELF. That is what the prophet himself said.

As for the different rules in qura'an that is another matter completely. to understand them and see if they make sense or not you have to study it and see the logic behind it. just because you disagree with it doesnt make it illogical.