Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Answers from the Christians  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Answers from the Christians

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
zulqarnain View Drop Down
Joined: 24 April 2006
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 94
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zulqarnain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 8:20am
Please post me the "scientific errors in the Quran" again, PLEASE.
Back to Top
zulqarnain View Drop Down
Joined: 24 April 2006
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 94
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zulqarnain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 8:22am
Send me the "link" soon as possible
Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:15am

“The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Bible was written by human beings who were 'inspired by God' (Theopneustos), thus they would use human speech and human ways of explaining how they figured out how the universe worked.  If a human says the universe was created in 6 days, that's no big problem, since the Bible's truth does not depend upon it's divine authorship. [bold emphasis mine]”

George, please elaborate or explain.  In my experience, I would think that many Christians, especially those of the “Biblical inerrancy” school, would say otherwise: that the Bible’s truth is truth precisely because of its divine authorship, inspiration, or theopneustos (consider, e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17).


Back to Top
George View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 April 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 406
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote George Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 9:29am

Originally posted by zulqarnain zulqarnain wrote:

Please post me the "scientific errors in the Quran" again, PLEASE.

Hi zulgarnain,

Since the moderators deleted my links, they have left me with the impression that they do not want me to use them.  So I won't.

I googled, "Scientific errors in the Quran" and got a lot of sites that cited what they considered errors.  I used the first 4 or 5 cites that came up.

This is the best I can do.

Back to Top
peacemaker View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote peacemaker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 4:11pm

Assalamu Alaikum!


"Since the moderators deleted my links, they have left me with the impression that they do not want me to use them.  So I won't.

I googled, "Scientific errors in the Quran" and got a lot of sites that cited what they considered errors.  I used the first 4 or 5 cites that came up."

13. We request you not to post URLs of sites the sole existence of which is to slander a religion or spread lies about it.

Above is a rule in the guidelines.

Moreover, when you say, scientific errors in Qur'an, could you discuss them what they are with evidence. As you know, it is "interfaith dialogue section". Just "cut and paste" from anti-Islam web sites without any dialogue whatsoever for information exchange doesn't serve the purpose.



Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 7:58pm

Greetings George.

This response was for me, not to Zul Qarnain.

I also noticed that you have pasted a great deal of your reply. I am not here to debate the "party line" of your faith. I was hoping for direct responses to my reply. I will make my points below.

Originally posted by George George wrote:


This is in response to your latest post to me.

The single homogenous belief system that you mentioned was in existence from the very first days after the resurrection of Jesus from the cross.  The gospel was preached orally for years.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other books in the New Testament represent it.

No, it was not. You should quote B Erhman's sources for this topic as well. There was no single "homogenous" belief system, and anyone who still makes this claim is delving into the absurd with a serious case of denial. History does not agree with this bald face assertion, and you have not offered anything beyond, "Yes there was".

Originally posted by George George wrote:

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented.

A repeat and you ignored my reply. The Christian claim for billions and trillions of MS is actually meaningless given that these MS are mostly dated after the fifth century and are copies of copies of copies. WHat we need is something within the first three centuries. Your early Christian communities were unable to agree on the basics like, "who was Jesus and what was he".


Originally posted by George George wrote:

These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor).

Irrelevant. It does not matter where they have been found, what matters is when they were written and by who. These are two points that are not resolved.


A MS dated to 125 AD?

Well, we have part of verses 31-33, and verses 37-38 of chapter "xviii". This is not tens of thousands of MS from the second century. This is a fragment that has nearly nothing on it that can help this thread or your claim. Could you point out the rest of the book? 


Originally posted by George George wrote:


 Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation.



Many? Portions? 150 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus?


This is a list of your tens of thousands of MSS.

I would conclude that this hardely matches the claims that we are all told about in church.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.




What you are doing is called dumping. I am unable to varify phrases such as, "thousands of early Christian writings". This is like saying, "we have tens of thousands of MSS". The conclusion you have tried to reach with your above "assertion" is that someone, who lived 200 CE quoted gospels they like amongst hundreds of other gospels? So 170 years later someone mentions a Gospel that you read, but this only shows that something was being read with an attributed name you are familiar with, and it may even be the same gospel, but this does not prove any claim to validity or authorship or historical factuality of the gospel accounts. These writings survived amongst other writings that were not preserved given the group that won out created their view on history and did everything they could to wipe out the claims of their rival sects and their beliefs. So your point is simply a non sequitur.


Originally posted by George George wrote:


We can determine some of the very Christian beliefs by the Creeds.


Again, this is no big "whoop". We already know that the early church inherited its tradition from the men you quoted, but we also know there were other groups with other thoughts, and the beliefs you derive are only founded on thinking at 200 CE, 170 years after the fact. In other words, we already know what the proto-orthodox believe. We do not know what Jesus believed. One thing simply does not imply the other. A non sequitur.


Originally posted by George George wrote:

Most of my information about the early Christian creeds comes from the book, "The Historical Jesus" by Gary R. Habermas. There is also a mention of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For Christ." Strobel's book is all interviews with noted historians and scholars and Craig L. Blomberg remarks on this creed. Habermas mentioned the works of Oscar Cullman, "The Earliest Christian Confessions" as "one of the classic works on this subject." I don't have that book but plan to try and get it. It was published in 1949.

 You are “asserting” and explaining your beliefs. This is not the same as replying to my points and arguing your case.

I would be happy to debate both works. Lee Strobel's work is extremely juvenile and he stays clear of any serious scholars. It is a soft work for those who already believe.


Originally posted by George George wrote:

The early creeds are important because they describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. These creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50AD. They are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.


The creed is based upon those who founded your belief system.

This would be from the time period of 200 CE.

To try and conclude that this means this is what Jesus believed is "stretching" the evidence.

This man thought "such and such thing" 200 CE, therefore 30 CE this is what some man thought.


 This again is a non sequitur.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

One of the earliest creeds in this one:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline?

1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

Circular reasoning. You are trying to show it is pre-Pauline. You are now trying to say that because Paul used a certain word, that it must be prepauline is simply irrational. You cannot prove something is pre-Pauline by evoking something Paul said, as what Paul said is not an established truth.

Furthermore, you have a major assumption that is not readily accepted: Paul was a spokesman for Jesus.

We know he was not universally accepted even in his own day.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."


This begs the question: So what?

Mark uses verses from the Hebrew Scriptures. This does not make what Mark says, a Christian belief that is pre-Mark or pre Christian. One does not provide proof for the other. This is a non sequitur.

If you feel I am wrong, then please elaborate.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

Once more, this begs the question: So what?

Copying a style or using past material does not make what Paul says to be what Gd wants us to believe. This is like saying, "What the Gospels say must be true because it uses verses from the OT, so therefore it is pre-Gospel period and must be true". This is yet another non sequitur.


Originally posted by George George wrote:

4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

 And yet we have another non sequitur.


Originally posted by George George wrote:

5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.


Your points are also using a great deal of “there are indications”, which tells me that the source you are taking this from is trying to tell us that their argument is “tenuous” at the very best. Not to mention this is another example of a “non sequitur”.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed:

Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.





1)     Paul never met Jesus. We only have controversial and conflicting reports that Paul talked to dead people after he had an “incident”.

2)     Whatever Paul thought or felt does not imply what was thought in Jerusalem.

3)     Any ideas that Paul has does not tell us anything about ancient Christians. Given the various groups that existed where each had their own ideas, one cannot discern between having an idea being started by myth or by fact.

4)     Paul is completely silent about anything “historical” about the life of Jesus.

5)     There were numerous “mystery faith” religions contemporary to Paul, such that there could be other sources for his personal beliefs, and not necessarily those of the ancient Christians.

6)     The early church fathers derived their beliefs from Paul, and chose anything attributed to him as the barrier between the ancient Christians and their own beliefs. This does not mean that Paul was the only “school of thought”.

7)     One must accept Paul as a valid representation of Jesus, and there is nothing that has been put forth in the last 2000 years that permits him to necessarily be such.

8)     Paul was sent to the gentiles because his message was considered flawed and not worthy the Jews who were the intended target of Jesus.   


Originally posted by George George wrote:

Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form—all dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of th at very event!

Conjecture, supposition, assertions, none of which answer the questions as to why Gd must die for our sins, affirm Paul as anything but another mediocre religious man in an environment with countless others, or establish what the first Christians thought.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

I am sorry George, your appealing to a derived creed from the Pauline letters by men who live 170 years after the fact and favored Paul’s thoughts does not conclude there are eye witness testimony who believed as you do. You are reaching, as is the author of the work you are taking this angle from. You are asking me to accept a great many assumptions. Perhaps at this point one should bring to mind Occam’s Razor,“entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”. The continued violation of this sound principle in order to show how Jesus really thought speaks volumes.


Originally posted by George George wrote:

By mid-second century Gnosticism was in full swing.  Also prevalent were the fanciful books—I call them folklore—Jesus speaking as an infant.  His first words were:  "


This has no relevance on the hundreds of gospel accounts that existed with the four you call “word of Gd”, nor does this validate any claim of authenticity of the four that were chosen by the same men who chose the Pauline letters to represent their ideas, nor does it invalidate the sources of mid second century books. Their sources are as known as the ones you call Gd’s word. 

Originally posted by George George wrote:

Bart Ehrman is a sad case.  Essentially he thought that the Bible somehow came down on a string from heaven.  When he found out that it hadn't, he became close to an agnostic.  His conclusions are being misused. 

This is the common belief of most evangelicals. That their NT is based upon a common source from known authorship direct to Jesus, hence, Gd. His conclusions are solid which is why many Christians are angry with him. His conclusions bolster the position that Christians do not actually have any way to know that their NT is directly from Jesus.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

Ehrman gave his permission to use this quote:

"I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world." 

1)     “scribes (did not) changed everything in the text, or even most things”, so then it is “ok” to tamper with the word of Gd as long as it was not everything? It is ok as long as it is with “some things”? So you are now asserting that it is ok that the MS were tampered with on some points, because it was the Chrch fathers that did it!?

You are being put on trial for "such and such thing". You and your counselor find out that the prosecutor is using evidence that has been tampered with. Your counselor takes this information to the judge showing that the prosecutor's evidence has been tampered with. The prosecutor looks suprised that you and your counselor are complaining and is mystified that you have a problem with his evidence. The prosecutor tells you and the judge, "Sure, it was tampered with, but it was our witnesses that did the tampering so what's the problem!?".

So the tampered evidence would be ok as long as only “some of the evidence” was tampered with by the prosecutors witnesses? :lol: Come on George.

2)     The corruption of scripture means that different men were looking at similar narratives and walking away with conflicting beliefs about Jesus. This allows one to deduce that they did not really know anything about Jesus, and followed conjecture. They were so desperate to win the theological battle, that they resorted to “fudging” their “word of Gd” in order to show that it really agreed with their own personal view. What kind of holy man fudges their word of Gd? This is called “lying”, or rather, pious fraud.

3)     The texts spoke about the resurrection because this is what the third doctors focused on and this was the focus of their personal views. So this begs the question: Why would they tamper with resurrection accounts if this is what they believed in. The texts they tampered with were ones which did not readily support their views, not those that did.

4)     He said himself that the “nuances” were important. That means key to your faith.

5)     So after 2000 years your scholars feel they can now reconstruct your NT concerning the four narratives that were chosen and transmitted. Keep in mind, “2000 years later”, and about the “four narratives you have”, which has nothing to do with their historical validity, or what Jesus actually thought or what his followers actually thought. You are trying to take these vague generalizations and make sweeping conclusions that simply do not follow.     


Originally posted by George George wrote:

I've talked to Bart 4 or 5 times.  He told me that the corrections in the NT need not affect anyone's faith and he agreed that Bruce Metzger was a perfect example.

You can read an review of his latest book here:

And another here:

Opinion. And about the links. George, I do not do links. If you have something to debate or discuss, I would be happy to engage the topic. I am not here to refute someone’s websites. I also have many links and material of the two authors above that support my views, but the thread will look silly if all we do is exchange links.

Originally posted by George George wrote:

It seems to me that you would be much better off if you accepted that the text of the Bible and the Koran have both had human hands involved in its history and based your arguments on that fact instead of trying to discredit the Bible.

You are welcome to your opinion. But what we need is substance. Please show me where the Quran has been “fudged” by scrupulous men such as that case of your church doctors?

Originally posted by George George wrote:

We are fortunate that we have so many copies of the NT in order to do textual criticism, unlike Islam who during the time of Ultman, all variant copies of the Koran were burned.

That is a very interesting statement. You are saying that you are lucky that you have no authoritative source from Jesus or his disciples, and instead have copies of copies of copies of narratives that were four out of hundreds whom you do not actually know the authorship and were fudged by your own doctors in dishonest attempts to prove their theology to each other and on top of that, the copies of copies of copies do not agree with each other on numerous verses. And you feel I am unlucky because the Prophet (saw) actually transmitted the Quran to his followers and afterward compiled an authoritative reading based on committee of first hand followers, and chains were established in the following transmission? So you would be unlucky if Jesus had actually authorized his teachings and words to his first hand followers who authorized this teaching afterward and they guarded and established a chain of transmission, discarding fallacious and invented sources, including mistakes? You cannot be serious. I will take my “unlucky” situation over your “lucky scenario” any day.  

Originally posted by George George wrote:

Even if a Christian decided not to be a Christian based on their interpretation of it the NT that does not mean that they should embrace Islam and the Koran.  The Koran has to be able to stand on its own.

I never made such an argument.

Also, could you please show that it does not stand on its own?

Originally posted by George George wrote:

I would venture a guess that if Bart did a textual analysis of the Koran he would come to the same conclusion that he did of the New Testament.  In other words, he would not become a Muslim.


That's actually pretty juvenile George. The bible and the Quran are two very different texts given there modes of transmission. So only an uneducated fool would try and apply the same criteria to the Quran as the bible. The criteria was developed based upon the text and its history. Therefore, one could apply the same criteria. Dr. B. Ehrman is not a scholar of classic Arabic or texts in classic Arabic. What he may find or not is conjecture and would be silly to further entertain. Also, I have not argued that the unreliable NT is proof of Islam. One comes to Islam based upon Gd. The unreliable NT is simply one unreliable holy book amongst others in the world. The important thing is that the Quran acknowledges Jesus and that he had some revelation. That’s all we need to know.   


A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
Back to Top
zulqarnain View Drop Down
Joined: 24 April 2006
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 94
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zulqarnain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:45pm
A very interesting answer Andulus.
I am not that good in the HISTORICAL knowledge of the Bible. But I do not need that proof, to beleive that the current Bible is not the word from Allah. I mean, if the source book of Christianity is contradicting itself, why would I accept it. And contradicting is the sense that, it has been proven by ESTABLISHED researches, not on the basis of private agreements.
Back to Top
zulqarnain View Drop Down
Joined: 24 April 2006
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 94
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zulqarnain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2006 at 11:48pm
This is one of Dr Zakir Naik's answer to a Christian Missionary.


Is it not true that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has copied the Qur’an from the Bible?


Many critics allege that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) himself was not the author of the Qur’an but he learnt it and/or plagiarised (copied or adapted) it from other human sources or from previous scriptures or revelations.


Some Pagans accused the Prophet of learning the Qur’an from a Roman Blacksmith, who was a Christian staying at the outskirts of Makkah. The Prophet very often used to go and watch him do his work. A revelation of the Qur’an was sufficient to dismiss this charge - the Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:

"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."
                             [Al-Qur’an 16:103]

How could a person whose mother tongue was foreign and could hardly speak little but of poor broken Arabic be the source of the Qur’an which is pure, eloquent, fine Arabic? To believe that the blacksmith taught the Prophet the Qur’an is some what similar to believing that a Chinese immigrant to England, who did not know proper English, taught Shakespeare.


Muhummad’s (pbuh) contacts with the Jewish and Christian Scholars were very limited. The most prominent Christian known to him was an old blind man called Waraqa ibn-Naufal who was a relative of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah (r.a.). Although of Arab descent, he was a convert to Christianity and was very well versed with the New Testament. The Prophet only met him twice, first when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba (before the Prophetic Mission) and he kissed the Prophet’s forehead affectionately; the second occasion was when the Prophet went to meet Waraqa after receiving the first revelation. Waraqa died three years later and the revelation continued for about 23 years. It is ridiculous to assume that Waraqa was the source of the contents of the Qur’an.

It is true that the Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Madinah more than 13 years after the revelation of the Qur’an had started. The allegation that these Jews and Christians were the source is perverse, since in these discussions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was performing the roles of a teacher and of a preacher while inviting them to embrace Islam and pointing out that they had deviated from their true teachings of Monotheism. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam.

All historical records available show that Muhummad (pbuh) had made only three trips outside Makkah before his Prophethood:
At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.

Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.

At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

It is highly imaginary to assume that the Qur’an resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips.


The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long.

The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years.

The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians.

It is inconceivable that any human author of the Qur’an would have accepted a situation in which he received no credit whatsoever for originating the Qur’an.
Thus, historically and logically it cannot be established that there was a human source for the Qur’an.


The theory that Muhummad (pbuh) authored the Qur’an or copied from other sources can be disproved by the single historical fact that he was illiterate.

Allah testifies Himself in the Qur’an
In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48

"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Allah (swt) knew that many would doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an and would ascribe it to Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). Therefore Allah in His Divine Wisdom chose the last and final Messenger to be an ‘Ummi’, i.e. unlettered, so that the talkers of vanity would not then have the slightest justification to doubt the Prophet. The accusation of his enemies that he had copied the Qur’an from other sources and rehashed it all in a beautiful language might have carried some weight, but even this flimsy pretence has been deprived to the unbeliever and the cynic.

Allah reconfirms in the Qur’an in Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel"

The prophecy of coming of the unlettered Prophet (pbuh) is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12.

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned."
[Isaiah 29:12]

The Qur’an testifies in no less than four different places that the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. It is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.


The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.


Similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible does not necessarily mean that the former has been copied from the latter. In fact it gives evidence that both of them are based on a common third source; all divine revelations came from the same source - the one universal God. No matter what human changes were introduced into some of these Judeo-Christian and other older religious scriptures that had distorted their originality, there are some areas that have remained free from distortion and thus are common to many religions.

It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.

The similarities between the two signify a common source that is one true God and the continuation of the basic message of monotheism and not that the later prophets have plagiarised from the previous prophets.

If someone copies during an examination he will surely not write in the answer sheet that he has copied from his neighbour or Mr. XYZ. Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) gave due respect and credit to all the previous prophets (pbut). The Qur’an also mentions the various revelations given by Almighty God to different prophets.


Four revelations of Allah (swt) are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Taurah, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur’an.

Taurah, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Moosa (a. s.) i.e. Moses (pbuh).
Zaboor, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Dawood (a.s.) i.e. David (pbuh).
Injeel, the revelation i.e. the Wahi given to Isa (A.S.) ie. Jesus (pbuh).
‘Al-Qur’an’, the last and final Wahi i.e. revelation given to the last and final Messenger Muhammad (pbuh).

It is an article of faith for every Muslim to believe in all the Prophets of God and all revelations of God. However, the present day Bible has the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses and the Psalms attributed to David. Moreover the New Testament or the four Gospels of the New Testament are not the Taurah, the Zaboor or the Injeel, which the Qur’an refers to. These books of the present day Bible may partly contain the word of God but these books are certainly not the exact, accurate and complete revelations given to the prophets.

The Qur’an presents all the different prophets of Allah as belonging to one single brotherhood; all had a similar prophetic mission and the same basic message. Because of this, the fundamental teachings of the major faiths cannot be contradictory, even if there has been a considerable passage of time between the different prophetic missions, because the source of these missions was one: Almighty God, Allah. This is why the Qur’an says that the differences which exist between various religions are not the responsibility of the prophets, but of the followers of these prophets who forgot part of what they had been taught, and furthermore, misinterpreted and changed the scriptures. The Qur’an cannot therefore be seen as a scripture which competes with the teachings of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. On the contrary, it confirms, completes and perfects the messages that they brought to their people.

Another name for the Qur’an is the ‘The Furqan’ which means the criteria to judge the right from the wrong, and it is on the basis of the Qur’an that we can decipher which part of the previous scriptures can be considered to be the word of God.


If you glance through the Bible and the Qur’an you may find several points which appear to be exactly the same in both of them, but when you analyse them closely, you realise that there is a difference of ‘chalk and cheese’ between them. Only based on historical details it is difficult for someone who is neither conversant with Christianity or Islam to come to a firm decision as to which of the scriptures is true; however if you verify the relevant passages of both the scriptures against scientific knowledge, you will yourself realize the truth.

Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period of time.

When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.

Sun Created After the Day
The Bible says in chapter 1, verses 3-5, of Genesis that the phenomenon of day and night was created on the first day of creation of the Universe by God. The light circulating in the universe is the result of a complex reaction in the stars; these stars were created according to the Bible (Genesis chapter 1 verse 14 to 19) on the fourth day. It is illogical to mention the result that is the light (the phenomenon of day and night) was created on the first day of Creation when the cause or source of the light was created three days later. Moreover the existence of evening and morning as elements of a single day is only conceivable after the creation of the earth and its rotation around the sun. In contrast with the contents of the Bible on this issue, the Qur’an does not give any unscientific sequence of Creation. Hence it is absolutely absurd to say that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) copied the passages pertaining to the creation of the universe from the Bible but missed out this illogical and fantastic sequence of the Bible.

Creation of the Sun, The Earth and the Moon
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 9 to 13, the earth was created on the third day, and as per verses 14 to 19, the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. The earth and the moon emanated, as we know, from their original star, the Sun. Hence to place the creation of the sun and the moon after the creation of the earth is contrary to the established idea about the formation of the solar system.

Vegetation Created on the third day and Sun on the fourth day
According to the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11-13, vegetation was created on the third day along with seed-bearing grasses, plants and trees; and further on as per verses 14-19, the sun was created on the fourth day. How is it scientifically possible for the vegetation to have appeared without the presence of the sun, as has been stated in the Bible?

If Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) was indeed the author of the Qur’an and had copied its contents from the Bible, how did he manage to avoid the factual errors that the Bible contains? The Qur’an does not contain any statements which are incompatible with scientific facts.

The Sun and the Moon both Emit light
According to the Bible both the sun and the moon emit their own light. In the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 16 says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night".

Science tells us today that the moon does not have its own light. This confirms the Qur’anic concept that the light of the moon is a reflected light. To think that 1400 years ago, Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) corrected these scientific errors in the Bible and then copied such corrected passages in the Qur’an is to think of something impossible.


As per the genealogy of Jesus Christ given in the Bible, from Jesus through Abraham (pbuh) to the first man on earth i.e. Adam (pbuh), Adam appeared on the earth approximately 5800 years ago:

1948 years between Adam (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh)
Approximately 1800 years between Abraham (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh)
2000 years from Jesus (pbuh) till today
These figures are further confused by the fact that the Jewish calendar is currently on or about 5800 years old.

There is sufficient evidence from archaeological and anthropological sources to suggest that the first human being on earth was present tens of thousands of years ago and not merely 5,800 years ago as is suggested by the Bible.
The Qur’an too speaks about Adam (pbuh) as the first man on earth but it does not suggest any date or period of his life on earth, unlike the Bible - what the Bible says in this regard is totally incompatible with science.


The Biblical description of the flood in Genesis chapter 6, 7 and 8 indicates that the deluge was universal and it destroyed every living thing on earth, except those present with Noah (pbuh) in the ark. The description suggests that the event took place 1656 years after the creation of Adam (pbuh) or 292 years before the birth of Abraham, at a time when Noah (pbuh) was 600 years old. Thus the flood may have occurred in the 21st or 22nd Century B.C.

This story of the flood, as given in the Bible, contradicts scientific evidence from archaelogical sources which indicate that the eleventh dynasty in Egypt and the third dynasty in Babylonia were in existence without any break in civilisation and in a manner totally unaffected by any major calamity which may have occurred in the 21st century B.C. This contradicts the Biblical story that the whole world had been immersed in the flood water. In contrast to this, the Qur’anic presentation of the story of Noah and the flood does not conflict with scientific evidence or archaeological data; firstly, the Qur’an does not indicate any specific date or year of the occurance of that event, and secondly, according to the Qur’an the flood was not a universal phenomenon which destroyed complete life on earth. In fact the Qur’an specifically mentions that the flood was a localised event only involving the people of Noah.

It is illogical to assume that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) had borrowed the story of the flood from the Bible and corrected the mistakes before mentioning it in the Qur’an.


The story of Moses (pbuh) and the Pharaoh of the Exodus are very much identical in the Qur’an and the Bible. Both scriptures agree that the Pharaoh drowned when he tried to pursue Moses (pbuh) and led the Israelites across a stretch of water that they crossed. The Qur’an gives an additional piece of information in Surah Yunus chapter 10 verse 92:

"This day shall We save thee in thy body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"
[Al-Qur’an 10:92]

Dr. Maurice Bucaille, after a thorough research proved that although Rameses II was known to have persecuted the Israelites as per the Bible, he actually died while Moses (pbuh) was taking refuge in Median. Rameses II’s son Merneptah who succeeded him as Pharaoh drowned during the exodus. In 1898, the mummified body of Merneptah was found in the valley of Kings in Egypt. In 1975, Dr. Maurice Bucaille with other doctors received permission to examine the Mummy of Merneptah, the findings of which proved that Merneptah probably died from drowning or a violent shock which immediately preceeded the moment of drowning. Thus the Qur’anic verse that we shall save his body as a sign, has been fulfilled by the Pharaohs’ body being kept at the Royal Mummies room in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

This verse of the Qur’an compelled Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who was a Christian then, to study the Qur’an. He later wrote a book ‘The Bible, the Qur’an and Science’, and confessed that the author of the Qur’an can be no one else besides God Himself. Thus he embraced Islam.


These evidences are sufficient to conclude that the Qur’an was not copied from the Bible, but that the Qur’an is the Furqaan - ‘the Criteria’ to judge right from wrong and it should be used to decipher which portion of the Bible may be considered as the Word of God.

The Qur’an itself testifies in Surah Sajda chapter 32 verse 1 to 3

Alif Laam Meem.

(This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt – from the Lord of the Worlds.

Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance."
[Al-Qur’an 32:1-3]

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.