All posts by David Stevenson

Part 3 - Does Song of Solomon 5:16 refer to Mohammad?

Part 3 – Does Song of Solomon 5:16 refer to Mohammad?

His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem,” (Song of Solomon 5:16).

Muslim Arguments The word translated here “wholly desirable” is the word “machamadim.” The word sounds a lot like “Muhammad,” though it is in the plural form. Some Muslims argue that this should be understood as the name Muhammad.
They contend that the small differences in pronunciation are irrelevant and that it is in the plural form as a sign of respect. Therefore, they say, this is a plain prophecy of Muhammad. Jews and Christians translate it as “wholly desirable” or “altogether lovely” to hide this clear reference to the Muslim prophet. “His mouth is full of sweetness” is said to be a reference to the giving of the Quran.

Christian Response To any Christian remotely familiar with Song of Solomon, the first appropriate response to this argument is honestly a hearty laugh. This is obviously a love song between Solomon and his bride, and to put Muhammad in the place of the bride’s beloved turns the book into nonsense. The context is clearly about the passionate love of a marriage and is sometimes rather descriptive. It could not possibly be about some future prophet bringing a new book.

Additionally, the argument hinges on the idea that, in the original Hebrew, the personal name of Muhammad is there. It plainly is not. The Hebrew word “machmad” means “desirable” or when used as a noun, “desirable thing” or “lovely thing.” The plural form used here, “machamadim,” is an emphatic form and so is translated “wholly desirable” or “altogether lovely.” The fact that it sounds kind of like a name in another language from a different time period is obviously irrelevant to the meaning of the word.

This word is used throughout the Old Testament. It is not a unique word. If the word secretly means the personal name “Muhammad,” then in places like Hosea 9:16 where God pronounces judgment on Ephraim and promises to slay even “your beloved” (machamadim) we should read this as a promise by God that He would slay Muhammad in judgment, right? No Muslim would want to say that, of course. And they don’t need to because the word quite obviously doesn’t mean Muhammad. If it
did, why would ancient translations from before the time of Muhammad
consistently translate it just as we do today? They would have no reason to try and hide Muhammad’s name when the man had not yet even been born and so obviously could not yet be rejected by any of them. The Greek Septuagint translation of Song of Solomon was completed sometime around the first century B.C., hundreds of years before Muhammad. It reads: “he is altogether an object of desire.” The old Latin text of the 5th century AD, still well before Muhammad, reads: “he is all lovely.”

The translation here is not controversial. No one is hiding anything. An eager bride finds her husband-to-be wholly desirable. She does not consider her future husband to actually be a prophet who will come a thousand years after she is dead. Since there is no personal name “Muhammad” in this text, there is absolutely no reason to think that this passage has anything to do with the
future Muslim leader.

Much more could be said, as this argument is so absurd. It is worth at least pointing out lastly that the same chapter in which these Muslims attempt to show that the beloved groom of Song of Solomon is actually Muhammad opens with this beloved groom drinking wine with his milk and urging all his friends to imbibe with him. As Islam strictly forbids alcohol, it is clear that this beloved groom not only isn’t Muhammad but does not even share the moral convictions that Muhammad would later promote. He urges people to do what Muhammad would call a
sin. Thus, on every level, this argument simply doesn’t hold water.

Having examined the context, it is evident that Song of Solomon 5:16 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Part 2 - Does Isaiah 29:12 refer to Mohammad?

Part 2 – Does Isaiah 29:12 refer to Mohammad?

A second verse that Muslim apologists refer to in support of their claims is Isaiah 29:12 – “Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Read this, please.’ And he says, ‘I am not literate.’”Muslims insist that: (a) the book referred to in this verse is the Qur’an; (b) the one to whom the book is delivered is Muhammad; and (c) the one who orders Muhammad to read the book is Gabriel. They suggest that Muhammad fits the description of this individual, since he was illiterate when the angel Gabriel revealed the words of Allah to him.

Once again we must not take the words out of their context. To understand the context of the verse, we must remember that Isaiah (who lived in the 8th century B.C.) is known as the ‘messianic prophet’ because he prophesied so many details about Jesus Christ—not Muhammad. In Isaiah 29 God pronounces judgements on Judah for her sins at that time (i.e. 702 B.C.).

The passage indicates that within a year, the great Assyrian king Sennacherib would lay siege to Jerusalem (vs. 3). Jerusalem (called ‘Ariel’) would be attacked by her enemies and punished for her sins against God, and then those enemies in turn would receive their just deserts (vs. 4-8).

God’s people were in deliberate spiritual blindness. To them the Bible was a closed book, and Judah’s false prophets were not helping the situation (vs. 9-10). Notice that Isaiah then describes the unwillingness of the people of his day to heed the truth, by comparing them to a literate person who is told to read something, but refuses, excusing himself by saying the document is sealed (vs. 11). Isaiah then likens the people to an illiterate person, who excuses himself by saying he cannot read (vs. 12).

The point is that the people of Isaiah’s day refused to pay attention to God’s Holy Word as spoken through His prophets. They did not want it! Verses 13-16 explain that because of their closed minds, they will suffer for their rejection of God’s Word when the Assyrians arrive to besiege the city, but, as usual, God reveals a better day when people will listen (vs. 17ff.).

Having examined the context, it is evident that Isaiah 29:12 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Part 1 - Does Deuteronomy 18:18 refer to Mohammad?

Part 1 – Does Deuteronomy 18:18 refer to Mohammad?

Muslims refer to Deuteronomy 18:18 (Tawrat) where God says to Moses, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”Muslims believe that this prophet was Muhammad. Abraham had two sons; Ishmael and Isaac. It is assumed that ‘their brethren’ refers to the Ishmaelites, and since it is assumed Muhammad was descended from Ishmael, he must be the prophet. However, a brief look at the background of the prophecy reveals that it was not the Ishmaelites who were in mind.
Who is God referring to with the words “them” and “their”?
My father used to work as a teacher. He often helped me with my homework. Whenever I asked him about the meaning of a word he would tell me to read the whole sentence or paragraph. I usually discovered the meaning myself just by reading the word in context! This is exactly what we must do when we read the Bible. We can’t just pick a word or paragraph out of context and make it say what we want. We must look at the whole context.
This prophecy is part of a discourse in which God gave Moses certain directions about the way the people of Israel (especially the Levite tribe) should conduct themselves once they reached the promised land. The first two verses of the chapter clearly reveal who God was referring to as ‘their brethren:’ “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His portion. Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as He said to them” (Deuteronomy 18:1-2).
It is clear that God is talking about the Levites. ‘Their brethren’ are the other tribes of Israel. Moses states that God will raise up a prophet like himself from among the Jews, from among their brethren. The prophet will be a Jew. Muhammad was not a Jew. He was born an Arab. The Arab people are not one of the tribes of Israel. So Muhammad was not Moses’ brother.

Who then fits the description of a prophet like Moses? Jesus Christ does. The New Testament (Injil) as a whole makes it plain that Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy Chapter 18 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus Himself said, “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46-47). He never said “Moses wrote about Muhammad.”

In the Gospel of John 1:45, we read words spoken by the apostle Philip: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah through Mary. Thus He was a Jew, an Israelite like Moses.

In Acts chapter 7 of the New Testament, Stephen says clearly that Moses foretold Jesus Christ. The apostle Peter declares the same thing in Acts 3:19-23, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’”

Having examined the context, it is evident that Deuteronomy 18:18 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

The Quran Scientific Miracle Scam

THE Quran SCIENTIFIC MIRACLE SCAM

How many times have you heard the favourite Muslim line: “There are scientific miracles in the Quran!” For decades, the Islamic world accepted they were far behind in the sciences unlike the West. Then came along a “hero” to the Arabs, Maurice Bucaille (1920-1998), a French physician of then king Faisal of Saudi Arabia. He published a book in 1976, The Bible, Quran and Science. In it, he attacked the inspiration of the Bible and cited several areas where the Quran allegedly agreed with modern science – proofs that the Quran is divine. The book paid off and Dr Bucaille went laughing to the bank.

Since then, Muslims have found a sanctuary in his theory. I’m sure if Dr Bucaille had been an African, the Arabs wouldn’t have batted an eyelash. But once a westerner (Caucasian) writes just a sentence in favour of Islam, it must make the headlines. After Dr Bucaille’s lofty appraisal of the Quran, he still didn’t convert to Islam. He remained a devoted Roman Catholic till death. Why? If he really believed that the Quran agrees with modern science and read in it that all infidels will roast in Hell, why didn’t he convert to Islam? You see, it was all for the oil money.

Today, “Bucailleism” – the idea that there are scientific miracles in the Quran – is a main topic of Islamic dawah books and videos. Muslim youths sing Bucaille’s arguments like a national anthem. But not all Muslims are excited with such buffs. Respected Muslim scholars like Maulana Ashraf Ali and Nomanul Haq have opposed “bucalleism.” Pakistani Nobel Laureate Physicist, Dr Abdus Salam counters: “There is no such thing as islamic science, nor Jewish science, Hindu science…nor Christian science.”

Come to think of it, if the Quran is so “scientific,” how come it doesn’t explain nuclear physics, quantum mechanics or molecular genetics? Why did all the great scientific discoveries of antibiotics, steam turbines, aircraft, electricity or computers come from the “infidel” Westerners instead of the turbaned sheikhs? Why is the Islamic world more eager to make bombs than vaccines? Even the term “scientific miracles” is a paradox. Sciences are not miracles and miracles are not scientific. It’s as inane as saying “elastic glass.”

In his debate with Dr Campbell, Dr Naik said: “In the olden days, it was the age of miracles, the Quran was a miracle of miracles. Then in the age of literature and poetry, it was a masterpiece. Now we are in the age of science and technology.”

This drivel reminds me of junk food – it fills you up but lacks wholesome nutrition. The Quran didn’t exist until the 7th century AD, so when was the time-frame of this “age of miracles?” Of course, Islamic miracles have long ceased, since they were either tales made up by Muhammad or his followers. Now, if the Quran was ever a “masterpiece” of literature and poetry, I can assure you that all non-Muslims would have converted to Islam, but they haven’t. In fact, the Quran is a badly written book plagued with many factual errors. This is why bucailleism is such a risky business; it exposes the Quran to scientific scrutiny.

Dr Naik continues: “The Glorious Quran is not a book of science, it’s a book of signs. And there are more than 6,000 signs in the Quran of which more than a thousand speak about science.”

These are word games. Signs are not “sciences,” they are supernatural feats while Science can be emperically tested and repeated. More than “a thousand sciences” in the Quran? This man is a politician. He should apply for the Indian cabinet.

Let’s check out some of these Quranic “scientific miracles”:

  1. The Big Bang

It is said that the Quran describes the ‘big bang’ theory in which one primary nebula separated with a big bang giving rise to galaxies. This is often laced with Sura 21:30: “Do not the unbelievers see? That the heavens and earth were joined together and we clove them asunder.”

Muslims really need to read up about the Big Bang. This theory stipulates that about 13.7 billion years ago, a tremendous explosion started the universe. Prior to this event, all the energy that transformed the matter was contained at one infinitely small point (not a nebula!) The explosion purportedly resulted into particles that gave rise to matter as well as space and time. Since the galaxies were not all clumped together, the idea of heavens and earth “being separated” as the Quran says is nonsense.

In their fervour (or rather ignorance) to find science in the Quran, the scientific miracle fans overlook the fact that the big bang theory excludes creationism which the Quran teaches. Big bang is a theory, not a scientific fact. If it’s true, then the story of God creating the earth or Adam and Eve is false. Only atheists believe in the big bang. Muslims can’t have it both ways. Besides that verse used as “proof” contradicts another one which says:
“Moreover he comprehended in his design the sky and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and the earth ‘Come ye together willingly or unwillingly…” (Q 41:11)

In Sura 21:30, Allah is separating the heavens and the earth while in Sura 41:11, he is joining them together. Two opposite versions of the same creation event! How can such a contradiction come from God? It’s even amusing that the Quran claims heaven was a smoke.

II. Egg-Shaped Earth?

Muslims claim that the Quran foretold the shape of the earth centuries before modern science. Q 79:30 “He made the earth egg-shaped.”

The trick here is that the Quranic version quoted is of Rashad Khalifa (a man denounced as a cultist by majority Muslims). All other versions read differently:

“He spread out the earth” (Pickthall)
“He extended the earth” (Ali);
“He spread the earth (Hilali-Khan)
“He spread forth the earth” (Sher Ali)
“He stretch out the earth” (Palmer)

Far from accurately telling us the shape of the earth, this verse is actually teaching a flat earth. The Arabic word translated as “spread out” is Dahaha and all Arabic dictionaries define it as a flat bed prepared by an ostrich to lay its eggs on. Sly Muslim scholars latch on to the word “egg” and insist that the word means egg-shaped. No, the earth is geoid, not “egg shaped.” In Muhammad’s time the earth was erroneously believed to be flat and that was exactly how he described the earth in the Quran:

“And He it is who hath outstretched [Madda] the earth and place on it the firm mountain.” (13:3)

“And the earth we spread out [Madadnaha]” (15:19)

“(Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out [Mahdan].” (43:10)

The Arabic words Madda, Madadnaha and Mahdan all mean flat. This was why a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, once dogmatically declared that the earth was flat. This is a shameful error, not a scientific miracle.

III. Oceanography

It is said that the Quran agrees with modern oceanography which states that when two types of water flow into one another, a slanting area is formed or an “unseen barrier.” Q 25:53 “It is Allah who let free two flowing bodies of water- one sweet and palatable, the other salt and bitter. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them is a barrier which is forbidden to be trespassed.”

There are no “invisible barriers which is forbidden to be trespassed” between two waters. No science textbook makes such a claim. Waters do not mix immediately because of differences in temperature and density, but they do eventually. Muhammad being a superstitious man thought there was an invisible barrier between such waters. His modern followers are no different, in spite of their academic titles.

IV. Mountains and the Sinking Sun

We are told that the Quran agrees with the modern theory of plate tectonics which says that mountains work as stabilizers and act as support for the earth.
Q 16:15 “And He has thrown onto the earth mountains lest it shake with you.”

This is nonsense. Mountains do not stabilise the earth. They actually result from the movements and instability of the tectonic plates. Another ridiculous verse is: “Have We not made the earth a bed? And the mountains as pegs?” (78:7). This a cave man thinking. The earth is geoid, not flat. Muhammad being an illiterate thought the mountains are just like the pegs the old Arabs insert into the ground to support their tents.

As if these are not bad enough, Sura 18:86 says Dhul Qarnain travelled “until he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water.” Muhammad thought the earth was flat and once the sun “sinks into a murky stream” sunset came about! How can such a stupid statement come from God?

When I was a boy, there was a bedtime story we used to read. It’s a story about a village of fools who saw the moon’s reflection in their stream for the first time, felt the moon must have fallen into it. So all the villagers – both young and old – came out with nets, boats, rakes, buckets and surrounded the stream to pull the moon out of it. Today, the Quran has made a village of fools out of many Muslims. We can still pardon the ignorant 7th century Arabs who fell prey to Muhammad’s lies, but how can we pardon the educated Muslims in this 21st century who still want to be fooled?

There seems to be a beam of cloud that blocks the mind of Muslims who promote the “scientific miracle” drivel. The longer it stays, the more fame and wealth their leaders get. There are no miracles in the Quran. The only miracle is the willingness of people to be fooled.

THe Muslim Misuse of Hebrews 5.7

THe Muslim Misuse of Hebrews 5.7

Hebrews 5:7 says God heard Him, but you need to continue reading to Hebrews 6:6, then read Hebrews 9 & 10 which clearly shows that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and died.

The Apostle Paul preached that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, died and resurrected.

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

So Hebrews 5:7 is just saying that God heard His supplications but not to stop Him from being crucified and dying, but to make Him the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him

Jesus said he would die.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28

After his resurrection and ascension he said he had died.

Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus did not only pray for the cup of suffering to pass, but also that God’s will to be done. Hebrews confirms this fact also in the following chapters;

Hebrews 7.27
Unlike those other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices every day. They did this for their own sins first and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus did this once for all when he offered himself as the sacrifice for the people’s sins.

Hebrews 9:12,14-15,26-28
[12]With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever.
[14]Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins.
[15]That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.
[26]If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice.
[27]And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment,
[28]so also Christ was offered once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.

Quran Errors

Quran Errors

Quran is the principle text of Islam and one of the three sources from which the Sharia law is cast. The Quran (also spelled Koran or Qur’an) was dictated from 609 to 632 AD by Muhammad and compiled after he died.

The most sensitive issue with the Quran concerns errors. Muslims claim the Quran is infallible and error-free, while others claim the Quran has errors.

Are there errors in the Quran?

The Quran does have errors. Some of the errors in the Quran are self-contradictions that Naskh tries to bridge. But Quran also has historical and archaeological errors, as well as errors in mathematics and logic. For example, the Quran states that one night, Allah took Muhammad to “al-Aqsa” mosque in Jerusalem:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa …” – Quran 17:1

The Muslim army captured Jerusalem in 637 AD and al-Aqsa mosque was buit in the early 8th century. The problem with the above claim in the Quran is that Muhammad died before the Muslim army even reached Jerusalem and decades before al-Aqsa mosque was built (for details, see al-Aqsa Mosque).

Or consider Quran 20, which claims that Moses confronted “Aaron” and a “Samaritan” for having made the golden calf for the Israelites while he (Moses) was on Mount Sinai:

“[Moses] said, “O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?” [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, ‘You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.'” [Moses] said, “And what is your case, O Samaritan?” – Quran 20:92-95

Assyria conquered the Jewish northern kingdom in 722 BC, exiled its upper class and brought in conquered people from other lands who intermarried with the lower class Jews who had been allowed to stay. Their offspring were called “Samaritans” (“Samiri” or “Samarians” in some translations of the Quran) because they occupied the region of “Samaria,” named after its original owner, “Shemer” (see 1 Kings 16:24 in the Bible). The Jews despised the Samaritans both for being a mixed race and for setting up their own temple to compete against the temple in Jerusalem.

But the golden calf incident near Mount Sinai mentioned in Quran 20:92-95 above took place in 1446 BC, which was 725 years before the first Samaritan was born in 721 BC.

It gets worse. Here is what the Quran says about Mary, the mother of Jesus:

“Then she brought [Jesus] to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.” – Quran 19:27-28

“And Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, and We breathed into (her body) of our spirit; and she believed in the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was of the devoutly obedient.” – Quran 66:12

There are a number of “Mary” – also spelled “Maria” or “Miriam” in English – in the Bible. One of them is the mother of Jesus:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” – Matthew 1:18

But the Mary who is the “daughter of Imran” (spelled “Amram” in the Bible) and the “sister of Aaron” was the sister of Moses who lived in the 15th century BC:

“The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam.” – Numbers 26:59

Therefore, unless Mary was 1,500 years old when she bore Jesus (see how old was Mary when she had Jesus?) – indeed, unless Joseph married a 1,500 year old virgin – Muhammad mistook two different women in the Bible as the same Mary.

Why does the Quran contain such glaring errors?

The proximate reason is that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore could not read the Bible for himself. He had only a vague and often incorrect knowledge of the Bible (see Bible vs. Quran) from what others read to him.

The ultimate reason, of course, is that Muhammad was a false prophet who confessed to mistaking the voice of Satan as God’s (see “Prophet” Muhammad) and who tried to cover up these and other embarrassing errors with Naskh.

Scientific inaccuracies in the Quran

Scientific inaccuracies in the Quran

Sperm:

The Qur’an states, incorrectly, that semen originates from a spot between the backbone and the ribs, Surah 86:6-7. However, science has demonstrated that sperm comes from the testicles whilst semen issues from different glands behind and below our bladder.

Flat earth:

The Quran is laden with verses which hint towards the impression of a “flat” earth. Surah 13:3, 15:19, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 20:53 and many more write that the earth is “spread out”, “Laid out”, or “like a carpet”. Yet due to modern scientific discovery we know that the earth is actually in the shape of a circular sphere.

Just to further elaborate on this point, ever notice how the Islamic Salat indirectly hints at the idea of a flat earth? Muslims all around the world are instructed to pray towards the Kabba 5 times a day. This would only make sense if we lived on a flat earth. If, however, Islam endorsed the belief in a spherical planet, we would get the following dilemma.

All things were made in pairs:

Within the Quran, surah 51:49, it writes that all THINGS were created in pairs. Yet, today we know of something called Asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offsprings arise from a single organism. It serves as the chief means by which single celled organisms are formed. Such examples include the Archaea, bacteria, various plants and fungi.
Shooting stars are missiles to drive out demons:

The Qur’an teaches that stars are fires set up in the sky to guard Heaven against demons. The demons want to hear what God is saying so they try to sneak up to heaven. If they are found, the guardians of heaven will hurl stars at them to chase them off: 15:16-18, 37:6-10, 67:5 and 72:8-9.

The dilemma, however, is that the Quran is confusing “stars” with “shooting stars”. Stars, as we know, are actually suns. Shooting stars on the other hand, are meteorites, or galactic debris. If we are to take the Quran seriously, then each time we see a “shooting star” we are to assume that it is actually a sun that is blasting across the sky in the pursue of a demon.
The sun settles in a muddy spring:

In surah 18:86, the Quran describes the sun as setting into a muddy spring. Yet we know due to modern scientific discovery that the setting of the sun is caused by the circular and rotational properties of our planet. There exists no place where the sun physically “sets”.

Historical inaccuracies in the Quran

Historical inaccuracies in the Quran

Samaria:

In Surah 20:85-88, 95 we read about the story of the Prophet Moses and the Israelite rebellion in their worship of the golden calf. The interesting thing within this passage, is that a SAMARITAN was accused of leading the people of Allah astray.

The story of Moses and the golden calf is dated to have occurred around 1400 BC. Yet the Samaritans did NOT exist until 530 years AFTER Moses. Samaria was founded by King Omri during the year 870 BC. The Samaritans did not exist until after the exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under King Sargon II in 722 B.C.

So the question arises: How could a Samaritan lead the people of Moses astray when Samaritans did not exist during the time of Moses?

Crucifixion:

According to Surah 12:41, the Quran writes that during the time of Joseph (in the Old Testament), death by crucifixion was actually something that existed and was being performed. Not only that, but the Quran writes in Surah 7:124, 26:49 and 20:71 that Pharaoh threatened the magicians who believed in Moses with crucifixion.

The major problem with these statements from the Qur’an is that there is no archeological or historical evidence that the Egyptians used crucifixion as a form of punishment in the time of Joseph, or in the time of Moses. Crucifixion only becomes a punishment much later in history.

Alexander the great:

In surah 18:83-98 we read about a man named Dhul-Qarnayn. Now, it is VERY rare to find a scholar of the Islamic religion which will not state that this points to Alexander the great. Here are just some of those people: Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743.

The problem, however, is that the Quran describes Alexander as being a “righteous and God fearing man”. That Allah is the one whom guided him and that he lead people into the fold of the Islamic faith.

However, when we even do a little research on the true and historical Alexander, we see that he was an idolater, claiming to be the son of the Egyptian God Amun. Very few would even consider him to be even remotely close to a righteous human being.

Mary, the Quranic confusion:

In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them.

The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called “the wife of Imran” (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.

The gospel of Jesus Christ:

In surah 4:157, the Quran unashamedly tells us that Christ was never killed nor crucified. But that it was made to appear so. Rather, Allah raised Christ unto himself. The traditional interpretation of this verse is that Allah replaced Jesus with Judas on the cross, hence ANY historical substantiation of this event would fall short on disproving the Islamic position, for they do not doubt that the crucifixion took place, but that it was Judas who took on Christ’s form.

Yet when we look to the historical record, we see that it too, also successfully dismantles this elucidation, because 10 out of the 12 apostles were martyred for believing in the MURDER and RESSURECTION of Jesus. History shows that that they firmly believed that it was Jesus himself who was murdered raised from the dead.

In The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, 2000, Ehrman says:

“ONE OF THE MOST CERTAIN FACTS OF HISTORY IS THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ON ORDERS OF THE ROMAN PREFECT OF JUDEA, PONTIUS PILATE”. (P. 162)

Atheist Professor of Early Christianity and the University of Gottinggen Gerd Ludemann says:

“JESUS’ DEATH AS A CONSEQUENCE OF CRUCIFIXION IS INDISPUTABLE”. IN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST: A HISTORICAL INQUIRY, 2004, P 50

We have at least 11 sources for the crucifixion of Jesus: Pre-Mark Passion Narrative, Q, John, Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter 2:24, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Martyr, Josephus Flavius, & Cornelius Tacitus. Pre-Mark and Q are very early dating to within years of the actual crucifixion.

Other less valuable sources such as Lucian, Mesa Bar Serapion (depends on dating), Thallus and the Talmud all affirm a constant tradition of Jesus’ crucifixion.

If this was really Judas on the cross, then surely they would have been aware. SURELY they would not have been willing to die for something they knew was false. So again, if we take the above mentioned interpretation into account, Islam is left with the following 2 problems:

If it was really Judas on the cross, then Islam is immediately contradicted by the historical sources that tell us Jesus was crucified and all those who knew him believed and died for the belief that he was crucified.
If Allah transformed Judas into Jesus, then the corruption of Islam, which eventually gave birth to Christianity, is Allah’s fault. For he is responsible for deceiving the masses, only to amend it hundreds of years later.

Now there does exist other interpretations such as “Christ did not die, but he merely fainted”. Yet all still manage to fail when brought under scrutiny of what history has to say concerning the crucifixion of Jesus.

Federal Headship

Federal Headship

Before I can answer this question, you need to know what the term “original sin” means. This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-32). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Let me explain.

The sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had not a literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. Jesus has two natures: God and man. Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.” Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.

Blood Atonement

BLOOD ATONEMENT

Question: “Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?”

Answer: The whole of the Old Testament, every book, points toward the Great Sacrifice that was to come—that of Jesus’ sacrificial giving of His own life on our behalf. Leviticus 17:11 is the Old Testament’s central statement about the significance of blood in the sacrificial system. God, speaking to Moses, declares: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

A “sacrifice” is defined as the offering up of something precious for a cause or a reason. Making atonement is satisfying someone or something for an offense committed. The Leviticus verse can be read more clearly now: God said, “I have given it to you (the creature’s life, which is in its blood) to make atonement for yourselves (covering the offense you have committed against Me).” In other words, those who are covered by the blood sacrifice are set free from the consequences of sin.

Of course, the Israelites did not know of Jesus per se, or how He would die on their behalf and then rise again, but they did believe God would be sending them a Savior. All of the many, many blood sacrifices seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice to come so that the Israelites would never forget that, without the blood, there is no forgiveness. This shedding of blood is a substitutionary act. Therefore, the last clause of Leviticus 17:11 could be read either “the blood ‘makes atonement’ at the cost of the life” (i.e., the animal’s life) or “makes atonement in the place of the life” (i.e., the sinner’s life, with Jesus Christ being the One giving life through His shed blood).

“But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

“…who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sin, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.” (I Peter 2:24)