Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[Dan Zebiri]

Example No.2. Erroneous Facts in the Quran

About Moses, Aaron and the 'Samaritan' in the event of the golden calf in the history of the Jews.

We read in both the Bible and the quran references to the SAME event:

Exodus 32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.?

Ex 32:2 Aaron answered them, take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.?

Ex 32:3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron.

Ex 32:4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, these are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.?

Ex 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD.?

Then COMPARE what the Quran claims about this very same event in the history of the People of Israel :

He [Allah] said, "We have tempted thy people since thou didst leave them. The Samaritan has led them into error." Then Moses returned ...

... and we cast them [(gold) ornaments], as the Samaritan also threw them, into the fire." (Then he brought out for them a Calf, a mere body that lowed; and they said, "This is your god, and the god of Moses, whom he has forgotten.") ...

Moses said, "And thou, Samaritan, what was thy business?" ...

-- Sura taahaa 20/85-88, 95

IT is quite clear from the above passages that :

i) the quran deliberately removes Aaron or nabi Harun as the culprit who made the golden calf for the Jews to worship!

ii) then it replaces Aaron with some nebulous character it calls 'as-samirii' Or the Samaritan who made that calf statue (Sura taahaa 20/95).

These are VALID QUESTIONS we can and should ask about the discrepencies in the Quran's version :

How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatery in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to "Samiri" and Pickthall to "As Samirii." Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it "Samaritan." Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, "bends over backwards" to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean "Shemer," which denotes a stranger, or "Shomer," which means a watchman, the equivalent of "Samara" in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. But the Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

EVEN If we for the moment presume that the 'samarii' in the Quranic sura above is NOT 'a samaritan', the Quran still commits deliberate FABRICATIONS of the facts:

1) It twists the facts that both Jewish sources and Christian sources-which are definitvely and substantially much more closer in the material time and space to the actual events themselves-and these Jewish and Christian sources that are much more authentic.

2) The Quran baselessly changes the name of the guilty party who made the golden calf to someone OTHER THAN the actual person. And this distortion of facts in the name of islamic tenets, IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED!

Aaron / nabi harun was not a 'samaritan', and vice versa!

But the quran erases Aaron as the guilty culprit anwway! And surreptiously inserts unwarrantedly the 'samaritan' as the replacement culprit making the golden calf to be worshipped!

The Jewish and Christian Scriptures, by retaining the sinful actions and guilt of such prophets of God -Eg.David and Aaron above, does not gloss over their failings, shortcomings and failures.

Both their Scriptures (Tanakh and Bible) DO NOT embellish over the sins and sinful actions of prophets of God, because these prophets are still sinful human beings, in spite of their noble Offices! Our Scriptures tell the truth and real facts of these prophets in spite of their failings. UNLIKE the quran.

On the other hand the quran is grossly guilty of such embellishments and glosses over such sins and sinful actions of these prophets, by TWISTING THE FACTS, DELIBERATE OMMISSIONS and OTHER FORMS OF MISREPRESENTATIONS -as I have already given valid examples of in the posts above.

It does this in the name of the islamic theological doctrine of 'Isma or Ma'asum - something I also already mentioned previously. Which means 'impeccablilty' or 'sinlessness of the (islamic) prophets.'

Therefore, the quran does indulge in distortion of the facts and truth to accommodate its theological biases and ideas-something that is extremely deceptive and deceitful, to say the least!

Which disqualifies it from being any sound source of guidance for mankind.

Dan.

[barnasha]

Barnasha,

Well, it is now very clear that you HAVE NEVER READ my posts I began in THIS THREAD with any care whatsoever!

well I admit to not having fully read some of your posts, since it is hard to discern what is a list of propagandish arguments, no matter how relevant or skillfully prepared, and which is intellectual debate or discussion in which you are engaging with your peers.

in your posts, it is often hard to find the latter, while it may be there.

I would prefer if you made your points more concisely (make posts shorter) so that I can make sure I address all your points. there is perhaps no need to cite things so heavily, at least not in citing the whole excerpt (i.e. pasting the whole verse which we can all look up easily elsewhere)

feel free to provide references, like (John 3:16-20) instead of filling your post with a bunch of citations, that might help...

with your extremely large posts it is hard to make sure we stick to a topic and come to a fruitful result.

thanks for your understanding


in regards to some of your comments above, you said the Quran "removes" something, but just because a detail in the Quranic version of a story does not exist in the Biblical version, it does not mean it was 'removed'. Do you have proof that it existed in the Quranic version before and then it was removed afterwards?

There are stories in the bible that occur in different places with differing details.

Does that mean part of the bible is "factually incorrect" as well (whatever that is supposed to mean)?

[Dan Zebiri]

Goodness sakes! Barnasha, I have tried very hard to make my posts as clear and simple as possible, in the light of the points discussed.

Neverthe less, let me then just point ONE EXAMPLE to you first, from the examples I had already posted, proving my captioned topic of this thread.

It is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=31

Where the Quran's version clearly changes and twists the key FACTS OF THE EVENT - of the building of the Golden Calf for thye Jews to worship, in Moses and Aaron's day!

All Jews and Christians KNOW for a factual certainty, that the person responsible for leading the Jews astray from worshipping the one true God, into worshipping a man-made golden calf, was AARON -Nabi Harun in Islam.

Aaron was the one who took the gold from the Israelitesand built the golden calf for the Jews to worship. BUT, the Quran blatantly erases the name of Harun/Aaron as the guilty culprit, AND REPLACES HIM WITH A NEBULOUS PERSON CALLED 'as-samirii'!

The Jewsat Madinah to who Muhamad was preaching islam knew VERY WELL their own History, and their religious traditiions, and when Muhamad preached like the above story to them - FOR SURE THEY WOULD NEVER ACCEPT SUCH A RE-WRITING of their own religio-traditional history, and SO REJECT Muhamad's ideas.

Muhamad took somebody from 'Samaria' which never existed until 700-Plus years LATER, TO BASELESSLY REPLACE AARON/ Nabi HARUN as the culprit who led Israel astray!

Nowonder modern scholars whom I already quoted earlier concur with my point above! That Muhamad preached erroneous things to the Jews, WHICH resulted in their rejecting him as a true prophet.

Muhamad was as much, IF NOT MORE, AT FAULT, for the Jews of his time (in Madina) rejecting him, and not following islam!

He never got his facts right, to begin with. Thats why.

So, how can we today, trust in the Quran if it engages in such facts-twisting and blatant errors of Jewish historical events..?!

That is just ONE point, there are many more such inconsistencies.

Dan.

[barnasha]

Goodness sakes! Barnasha, I have tried very hard to make my posts as clear and simple as possible, in the light of the points discussed.

Neverthe less, let me then just point ONE EXAMPLE to you first, from the examples I had already posted, proving my captioned topic of this thread.

It is here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=31

Where the Quran's version clearly changes and twists the key FACTS OF THE EVENT - of the building of the Golden Calf for thye Jews to worship, in Moses and Aaron's day!

difference between two accounts of the same story does not mean one of the two "changed" it ..

who defines the facts?

there are stories in the bible with different details... does that mean all of the bible's versions of stories except one are "changed" or "factually" incorrect?

your very premise would negate the validity of the biblical accounts too, since the stories predate the books from which we receive them, and since there are a plethora of different versions of them

Aaron was the one who took the gold from the Israelitesand built the golden calf for the Jews to worship. BUT, the Quran blatantly erases the name of Harun/Aaron as the guilty culprit, AND REPLACES HIM WITH A NEBULOUS PERSON CALLED 'as-samirii'!

where did you read about this? which website did you read about it on?

who told you 'as samiri' was a person and that it could not be aaron?


seems youre taking other peoples arguments and floating them here...

are you that desperate to find some problem with Islam?

[Tladatsi]

Hello Bar Nasha,

Well the Quran certainly does differ from the Tanakh in this particular detail. In the 20th sura - Ta Ha - it is The Samiri - The Samaritan - who proposes the creation of the calf shaped idol. Haroun is merely implicated as not stopping the worship. There are four people speaking, Allah, Musa, Haroun, the People, and

Ta Ha 80-94

(Allah) O children of Israel! indeed We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a covenant with you on the blessed side of the mountain, and We sent to you the manna and the quails.

Eat of the good things We have given you for sustenance, and be not inordinate with respect to them, lest My wrath should be due to you, and to whomsoever My wrath is due be shall perish indeed.

And most surely I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction.

(Allah) And what caused you to hasten from your people, O Musa?

He (Musa) said: They are here on my track and I hastened on to Thee, my Lord, that Thou mightest be pleased.

He (Allah) said: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samiri has led them astray.

So Musa returned to his people wrathful, sorrowing. Said he (Musa): O my people! did not your Lord promise you a goodly promise: did then the time seem long to you, or did you wish that displeasure from your Lord should be due to you, so that you broke (your) promise to me?

They (the people) said: We did not break (our) promise to you of our own accord, but we were made to bear the burdens of the ornaments of the people, then we made a casting of them, and thus did the Samiri suggest.

So he brought forth for them a calf, a (mere) body, which had a mooing sound, so they (the people) said: This is your god and the god of Musa, but he forgot.

What! could they not see that it did not return to them a reply, and (that) it did not control any harm or benefit for them?

And certainly Haroun had said to them before: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order.

They (the people) said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Musa returns to us.

(Musa) said: O Haroun! what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, So that you did not follow me? Did you then disobey my order?

He (Haroun) said: O son of my mother! seize me not by my beard nor by my head; surely I was afraid lest you should say: You have caused a division among the children of Israel and not waited for my word.

He (Musa) said: What was then your object, O Samiri?

He (Samiri) said: I saw (Jibreel) what they did not see, so I took a handful (of the dust) from the footsteps of the messenger, then I threw it in the casting; thus did my soul commend to me

He (Musa) said: Begone then, surely for you it will be in this life to say, Touch (me) not; and surely there is a threat for you, which shall not be made to fail to you, and look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long); we will certainly burn it, then we will certainly scatter it a (wide) scattering in the sea.

The Tanakh mentions no Samiri. I do not see how Haroun could the Samiri, since they are addressed separately with different charges. Musa is questioned by Allah as to why he wandered off but is cleared of any wrong doing. Haroun is questioned for doing not enough to stop the worship, of which he seems to be cleared. Samiri is questioned about initiating the worship and pleads guilty. Samiri is banished, which clearly does not apply to Haroun.

difference between two accounts of the same story does not mean one of the two "changed" it ..

who defines the facts?

there are stories in the bible with different details... does that mean all of the bible's versions of stories except one are "changed" or "factually" incorrect?

your very premise would negate the validity of the biblical accounts too, since the stories predate the books from which we receive them, and since there are a plethora of different versions of them

where did you read about this? which website did you read about it on?

who told you 'as samiri' was a person and that it could not be aaron?


seems youre taking other peoples arguments and floating them here...

are you that desperate to find some problem with Islam?

[Tladatsi]

Hello Dan Zebiri,

Where the Quran's version clearly changes and twists the key FACTS OF THE EVENT - of the building of the Golden Calf for the Jews to worship, in Moses and Aaron's day! Dan.

I was afraid you were going to loose your breath with all of those CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation marks!

Islam has held that the prophets cannot err and since Haroun was a prophet (and a brother of a prophet) he could not have lead the people into sin. Now I will grant you that this is a difference but it is a pretty minor one. It hardly twists key facts. God (Yahweh / Allah) lead the people from captivity and gave them The Law in the Sinai. While Moses was away conferring with God, the people made a calf from their jewelry (presumably gold). God and Moses both got very angry. There are plenty of other details that are different, not just who came up with the idea of the golden calf. However, the basic story is the same.

[barnasha]

The Tanakh mentions no Samiri. I do not see how Haroun could the Samiri, since they are addressed separately with different charges. Musa is questioned by Allah as to why he wandered off but is cleared of any wrong doing. Haroun is questioned for doing not enough to stop the worship, of which he seems to be cleared. Samiri is questioned about initiating the worship and pleads guilty. Samiri is banished, which clearly does not apply to Haroun.

good synopsis, thanks

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

We are talking about quranic claims to accuracy, truthfulness consistency here, and NOT the Bible, so kindly stick to the points.

The facts are found in the original story - which is the Old Testament records, and which the quran MUCH LATER ON, tries to echo in sura Taahaa.

IF the quran says that it is THAT true, truthful or even factually viable, then it ought not to be wrong and erroneous or engage in facts-twisting on such basic issues as Aaron, brother of Moses and the history of the Hebrew nation! A story that ALL Jews and Christians know in the public domain.

The fact that Sura taahaa 20/85-88, 95 mentions names of peoples (the Jews), and individuals -Moses, the "Samirii" etc and events - the making of a Golden calf indicates that we can at least try to verify some of these items factually.

Can you bring convincing proof or facts that 'Aaron was also the as-samirii' as you try to desperately claim??

In the plethora of quranic versions floating around, we find that the majority of them do claim that as-samirii in this Sura is actually 'the Samaritan' and NOT Aaron in any way, shape or form!

Tladatsi is right to say that the quran and/or islam teaches impeccability - that prophets and other men of God cannot err or sin! This is what called 'isma or ma'asum which I had already mentioned a number of times.

It is due to THIS very idea and islamic Bias of 'isma' / ma'asum that islam erases and deletes the sin of Aaron of leading the people of God - the Hebrew nation, into making and then worshipping the Golden calf instead of the One True God Yahweh.

This is also the same reason why there is not mention in the quran of :

1) David's SIN of MURDER of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba.

2) David's SIN of ADULTERY with Bathsheba, which produced a son and invoked God's punishment on both of them,

3) The SIN of Lot (nabi Lot or nabi Lut) and his sin of incest and fornication with his two daughters,

4) The SIN of Abraham denying Sarah as his wife before pharoah in Egypt,

5) Jacob's / nabi Yakob's sin of robbing his elder brother, Esau of Esau's birthright as the first-born son.

These misrepresentations and falsifications above (among others), prove that the Quran engages in changing or omitting facts or events that have actually happened in Israelite history to suit its theological bias of 'isma'.

The same can be said about the death and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the quran tries to deny that Jesus was 'defeated' on the Cross by death, and that 'God raised Jesus up to Himself'. Muslims think that by saying this, they are giving God more honour, because it is a grave dishonor and shame if Allah was unable to somehow "save Jesus" in a 'rescue operation' from such a humiliating death as crucifixion by his enemies.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

Jesus Christ had already on numerous occasions and times clearly declared his impending death by execution in Jerusalem to his disciples when He was with them, 2,000 years ago.

His death was never a defeat for Christ Jesus whatsoever, it was rather an expression of the power and the love of God to Mankind :

14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

18 NO ONE takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I HAVE AUTHORITY to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

John 10 : 14-18.

SO, yes, the Quran engages in falsification and revisionism of the historical facts to promote its own version and bias, and sacrifices truth and facts in favor of its falshoods.

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

Muslims like mudcake and others claimed that Jesus Christ will come back a second time to the Earth and, break the crosses, rebuke or scold Christians for calling Jesus Savior and Lord, kill the pigs etc...

BUT let us look at what Jesus actually told people who tried to deny His death by the Cross and execution, over 2,000 years ago:

21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and to suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be KILLED, and be raised up on the third day.

22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You."

23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

Matthew 16 : 21-24

You will all be shocked and totally surprised, Muslims, if you persist in your mistaken belief that Jesus will deny His crucifixion and rebuke the Christians at His second Coming!

Jesus Christ actually rebuked Peter his disciple SEVERELY and harshly, for trying to stop Jesus from being crucified and publicly executed by his enemies!

Jesus even called Peter SATAN, for trying to prevent Jesus' death and crucifixion 2,000 years ago.

So, do not be surprised if Jesus will also severely and harshly REBUKE all you muslims who think that Christ Jesus did not go to His death on the Cross, 2000 years ago!

Just as Jesus Christ harshly scolded and severely rebuked and reprimanded Peter, His disciple for trying to stop Jesus' Crucifixion from taking place.

[Tladatsi]

This is also the same reason why there is not mention in the quran of :

1) David's SIN of MURDER of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba.

2) David's SIN of ADULTERY with Bathsheba, which produced a son and invoked God's punishment on both of them,

Don't forget Coveting Thy Neighbor's Wife, David broke that commandment as well. David went for the "Hat Trick" with that one.

3) The SIN of Lot (nabi Lot or nabi Lut) and his sin of incest and fornication with his two daughters,

Well I think there are extenuating circumstances there. They got him drunk both times, he did not know that it had even happened. In any event, Genesis does say that any sin had occurred. Usually when sins occur, the book says so - So & So did evil in the eyes of the Lord.

4) The SIN of Abraham denying Sarah as his wife before pharoah in Egypt,

Definitely no sin there. Abraham made out like a bandit. He passed his wife off as his sister, got her back, plus lots of silver, gold, and cattle. He did not sin there.

5) Jacob's / nabi Yakob's sin of robbing his elder brother, Esau of Esau's birthright as the first-born son.

Well yes but it was Yahweh's will that this occur. Yahweh favored Jacob over Esau even while they were in the womb. Certainly this robbing occurred with Yahweh's consent.

In any event, the Quran is not a recitation (no pun intended) of the Tanakh. References to the Tanakh are only found in a few of the later, longer, more polemical suras. The purpose is not to recount the contents of the Tanakh, indeed what would be the point since the Tanakh already exists. Suras are poems and the author took poetic license and included some things and excluded others to make a theological point.

[Dan Zebiri]

Well, well trying to be the devil's advocate are you tladatsi... ?

Even if the Tanakh or Holy Bible did not single these acts of these men of God and Prophets, as sinful actions per se, these moral or ethical failures are certainly blemishes and BLOTS on their character and reputations!

Thus, Jacob is known as a cunning trickster and conniver, Lot did commit INCEST with his daughters, something socially unacceptable and reprehensible in his day and time, Abraham became a LIAR and told that LIE, to cover up for his wife's true status, Etc...

And of course, David (nabi Dawood) was a murderer, adulterer and coveter of his neighbor's wife!

All these accounts and stories the Quran never records and / or deletes deliberately and completely. Albeit to 'protect the dignity of these Prophets and of God' in the name and bias of 'Ma'asum' or 'isma'!

Like I also pointed out before (above), the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a ALSO DENIED BY THE QURAN, under the same questionable & doubtful guise of 'ma'asum' ie.Impeccability! To protect God's honour that He had to somehow 'SAVE JESUS' from such an ignominous death and execution by men!

BUT Jesus Himself NEVER ran away or shied from His Cross and His execution - actually PROPHESYING THAT VERY EXECUTION Himself THREE TIMES to His followers.

On the OTHER hand, the quran/hadith etc would rather sacrifice truth and the historical FACTS at the hand of its own questionable and baseless bias of 'impeccability' ie.'Isma!

It is NO WONDER, that according to scholars familiar with the History of the Jews in Arabia, that in Muhamad's time, the Jews actually REJECTED MUHD'S TEACHINGS because Muhammad himself screwed up his stories and got all of them WRONG!!

"For these and other reasons, the Jews rejected Muhd's prophetic claims and also refused to become Muslims. This alone infuriated Muhd. BUT it was even more infuriating that the Jews publicly noted the factual errors in Muhd's biblical referenced teachings. (The Jews and the Golden calf, David and the 'litigants', Abraham and Sarah, Moses, Pharoah and 'Haman' etc) that he tried telling them, and they...even ridiculed Muhd's claim to prophethood (prophecy)."

Dennis Prager, 'Why the Jews'The Reason for Antisemitism, Simon & Schuster, 2003 page 97.

This is further confirmed by scholars like S.D. Goitien who wrote:

"It is only natural that Muhamad could not tolerate as a neighbour (in Madinah), a large monotheistic community which categorically denied his claim as a prophet AND ALSO ridiculed his inevitable blunders." ie.Blunders of factual errors when compared against their own established record of Jewish history!

S.D. Goitien, Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through the Ages. New York: Schocken, 1964, page 64.

Think seriously on these facts, barnasha and mudcakes!

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

Still awaiting any cogent or logical response from you, barnasha!

Don't run away, my friend!

Dan.

[barnasha]

Still awaiting any cogent or logical response from you, barnasha!

Don't run away, my friend!

Dan.

I actually like the response you already received on this:

In any event, the Quran is not a recitation (no pun intended) of the Tanakh. References to the Tanakh are only found in a few of the later, longer, more polemical suras. The purpose is not to recount the contents of the Tanakh, indeed what would be the point since the Tanakh already exists. Suras are poems and the author took poetic license and included some things and excluded others to make a theological point.

Although any Islamic scholars would contend that "surahs" are not merely poems (due to the history of the Arab poets and the Quran's explicit mention of poetry, etc), there is no doubt they are verbally poetic.

The erroneous assumption that the Quran is "copied from" earlier scriptures seems to be the mistake that leads you to think there is some 'factual incorrectness', in that the mythological accounts in the Bible and Quran have differences.

As pointed out before, there are the same myths reported in different ways (even with minor inconsistencies) in the Bible - so which books of the bible are "factually incorrect"?

cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...al_consistency

"One example of a perceived conflict is where Matthew and Luke give a genealogy of Jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Apologist commentaries have suggested that the differences are the result of two different lineages, Matthew's from King David's son, Solomon, to Jacob, father of Joseph, and Luke's from King David's other son, Nathan, to Heli, father of Mary and father-in-law of Joseph"

Which gospel is "falsifying" and "sacrificing truth and facts in favor of its falsehoods" (your words, applied to inconsistencies between Quranic and Biblical relations of the same myths)?

There is no doubt the Bible is the main means of preservation of the Hebraic folklore and culture from which the mythology and theology is derived. The sad thing is, if it invented something different, you would say it's different. But since it's the same theology as the Hebrews, and uses the same culture and mythology, now you'll say it's "copying" and therefore is bad.

The lessons in the myths have just as much power when read from either book. The difference is that God (who is historically considered the narrator) provides commentary for the myths in the Quran, and that is the focus of their relation - not their proper historical preservation or "copying" from the original folklore as preserved in the scriptures ("Biblical" or not).

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

Your trying to justify the factual errors of the quran by refering to some apparent differences in the genealogy of Jesus Christ is a desperate attempt to deflect the attention away from the real issues of the quran's unresolved inconsistencies.

Can't you stay and stick to the material points and explain logically those errors and factual contradictions with a rational explanation? Thats the one of the main reasons why many people cannot find a sound and intelligent basis to believe in the QUran and its claims!

The differences in the 'two genelogies of Jesus Christ' in the canonical Gospels of the NT can be reasonably soundly explained..:

Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior).

Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity. It is generally accepted that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)

Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".

Every one one earth has 2 geneologies - one through the Father, and the other - through the Mother. So, this is also true of Jesus the Christ! See and study the above properly, barnasha!
See further here : http://contenderministries.org/discr...dictions.php#2

Returning the real and original points you are trying to defend, It is impossible that the Golden Calf was made by some one OTHER than Aaron / Haroon (in arabic), both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures record the actual person who is at fault for doing that!

BUT, your quran, due to 'ma'asum' (islamically biased teaching of 'impeccability') , TWISTS THE FACTS, & literally changes the culprit's name to a description - the so-called 'as-samarii' . Which many versions of the quran today - in different languages, confirm as 'the Samaritan'!

HOW can this be?? This is clear proof that the Quran does indulge in falsehoods. There is no way that islamic ma'asum would admit 'Haroon' or Aaron who as a 'prophet of islam' could ever have his reputation blotted and besmirched with such an act to mislead the people of God into idol-worship!

Furthermore, the quranic record had the gall to add further embellishments that this Golden calf produced by this character 'Mooed' ie.made a lowing sound (sura al-araf 7/148) ! But this is not found in the Torah nor the Bible records.

Then the quran denies that Jesus Christ was crucified and adds all kinds of myths and stories of his so-called 'substitution' by other victims eg.Judas, whose face was 'changed to be like Jesus'". That Jesus was 'taken up to heaven through a hole in the Roof" thus escaping arrest or execution! etc,etc!

And then you yourself try to describe Jesus Christ's crucifixion 'as a defeat'. When it IS FAR FROM ANY DEFEAT WHATSOEVER!

Jesus Crucifixion, 2,000 years ago, was never a 'defeat; for Him in ANY WAY! Jesus Christ himself contradicts your pitiful misguided notion above, barney!

He had already prepared His disciples on at least 3 times & occasions, to get ready for Jesus impending arrest, execution, death and subsequesnt resurrection. THIS is itself corroborated by many other sayings AND Parables that Jesus Christ Himself taught to His disciples!

Peter-Jesus' disciple also could very well have held a similar notion as you barney-boy! That for Jesus Christ to be executed and die on the Cross was a defeat' for HIm. Muslims also think in such ways... THATS why sura 4/157 tries to deny the fact of the Crucifixion of Christ.

But all of Jesus Disciples never saw it that was, and Jesus Himself never did.

So, in this particular matter, the quran gets it WRONG AGAIN, by trying to change the records and by twisting the facts of the crucifixion event of Jesus Christ and adding all kinds of myths & legends to explain away His crucifxion 2,000 years ago...

Once again, the false islamic notion of impeccabiity ('isma) is found to be wholly guilty to change such facts to suit its own agenda and unfounded biases!

Such proofs convince us that the quran cannot be trusted at all, nor is it a reliable source to know the real and true facts about the Prophets AND about Jesus Christ, as well as it resoundly fails to convince us that it is a sound source of any guidance for Mankind!

Dan.

[barnasha]

Barnasha,

Your trying to justify the factual errors of the quran by refering to some apparent differences in the genealogy of Jesus Christ is a desperate attempt to deflect the attention away from the real issues of the quran's unresolved inconsistencies.

there very premise that there are any "factual errors" was brought up by two people so far in the last few posts, and you did not address those concerns....