hilander62

http://www.afa.net/

Muslims Because they actually claim to accept the entire Bible as truth, they find themselves perched in a precarious position: Either they must make a valid historical case that Bible manuscripts have been massively

altered - or they must abandon Islam entirely.

This is because the Bible clearly attests its completeness - in other words, it claims to be the final revelation from God. No other revelations will follow it. This doesn't leave much room for the Koran (or any other such-like "revelation from God") since the Koran came rather late to the party - 500 years late, in fact. And just as bad for Muslims is the Bible's repeated

identification of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Since the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Koran glaringly contradicts the very Bible it claims to authorize. (13)

Thus, many modern Muslims have "bought in" to baseless charges of gross Biblical inaccuracy. Muslims claim the original Biblical books were 100% accurate, but the manuscripts were all tampered with by unscrupulous Greeks who purposely altered the Bible to make it sound like Jesus was the Messiah and to make folks doubt the Koran. They further assert that the only part of the Bible which perhaps can be trusted are those portions which do not disagree with the Koran, a book they believe is infallible.

Muslims also believe all manuscripts of the Koran are also infallible, since Allah, they insist, guided the copying process to ensure 100% accuracy. This creates yet another logical difficulty for Muslims, who now must explain how those who copied the Koran were guided by Allah to prevent human error - but those who copied the Bible (which they also believe came from Allah) were not guided by Allah but instead plagued with a severe case of "blunderitis." Furthermore, to get

every manuscript to match, early Muslims destroyed every conflicting copy of the Koran, such that today no Muslim can be certain the Koran is even similar to that which Muhammad originally wrote. Did Allah guide only the hands of certain copyists?

Please:first off do not be insulting. But please research more about the authenticity of the Bible proved by science. Here is a good place to start. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/contralin...

The next proof is the Bible's uniqueness and unity. The Bible was written by over 40 authors who came from just about every walk of life conceivable, including fisherman, kings, a butler, priests, and a tax collector. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a 1,500 year span in three languages on three continents with one theme and no contradictions. C.J. Sharp captures this miracle well:

"If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God (16)."

It would be extremely difficult for the honest skeptic to dispute the overwhelming archeological support for the historical accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments. Numerous items discussed in the Bible such as nations, important people, customary practices, etc. have been verified by archeological evidence. Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that collaborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few. The noted Jewish archeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:

It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible1.

When compared against secular accounts of history, the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument, and sometimes required other evidence to extrapolate the reference2.

I believe one of the more overwhelming testimonies regarding the depth of archeological evidence for the New Testament is in the account of the famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4.

The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:

Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5.

Discoveries ranging from evidence for the Tower of Babel, to Exodus, to the Walls of Jericho, all the way to the tombs of contemporaries of St. Paul, have greatly enhanced the believability of the Bible. Though this vast archeological evidence does not prove God wrote the Bible, it surely must compel the honest skeptic to at least acknowledge its historical veracity. For the believer its yet another reassuring testimony to the reliability of the Bible. In the words of the University of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows:

...Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine6.

It is fairly clear that the Bible manifests the attribute of having many specifically fulfilled prophetic predictions, which constitutes powerful evidence that the Bible truly originates from true prophets of the true almighty God. The Bible meets the challenge which God (YHWH) set out: To predict events of human history. --- In contrast, however, there does not seem to be a single specific prediction of human history in the Koran which is unique and original to the Koran and was not found in the Bible first (such as some end-time judgment concepts). This lack of predictive power is an announcement that the Koran does not clearly demonstrate God's power and authority within its pages. It fails to meet God's challenge.

What's more, when the Bible's predictive prophecies by comparison are pulled into the discussion, the failure of the Koran to demonstrate such power of truly being authored by the true God stands out even more. --This situation is glaringly exhibited when one compares it to something like the amazing accuracy of the predictive prophecy of Jeremiah (cited above) concerning the 70-year captivity of Judah in Babylon, which ended right at 70 years!

Similar to Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, the prophet Daniel accurately predicted the year (hundreds of years in advance) in which the Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth) would be ministering! --and if you want to study that particular prediction more in depth, as well as additional fulfilled predictions from the Bible, they can be found on a page on this website, entitled:

Prophetic Predictions Prove the Bible's Authority.

Concerning the evident inaccuracy of the prediction in Sura 30:2-4, it seems to be very significant evidence which disqualifies Mohammed as a true prophet of God. It might be possible that Mohammed never actually intended to be considered a prophet, nor that the Koran was to be thought of as scripture, but that Mohammed just wanted to write commentary and human opinions about God, so that the Koran may be considered to be a history, or great prose and poetry, and a religious commentary, however, it cannot be said to be actual scripture with the true words of God.

Because of its fulfilled prophetic predictions, it is the Bible which stands high and exalted as truly originating from God, and it is YHWH of the Bible who distinguishes himself as being the true and living Almighty God! It is the Bible which can be trusted to describe who God truly is, what he is like, and what his requirements for salvation actually are. He is the one who sets out the challenge for anyone else to foretell the future.

I am aware that many speakers of the Arabic language --including Arab Christians-- use "Allah" as the noun which means "God" in a generic sense, however, because of the absence of predictive prophecy in the Koran, we would have to say that the Quran does not give evidence of being able to accurately or fully reveal who "Allah" truly is, but instead one must go read the true prophets in the Bible in order to know who "Allah" really is. We must conclude that "Allah's" true personal name is "YHWH," the tri-une God of the Bible.

If we consider that both the Koran and the Bible make claims to be protected and preserved from significant falsehood and corruption, we must rule in favor of the one book (the Bible) which repeatedly demonstrates the mighty power of God to predict specific events in the future, and therefore it would logically be the book which would also have God's power behind it to protect it from corruption!

The Koran does accept the Bible as being true revelation from God (and so it should), however, the Bible's standard rejects the Koran as revelation from God because the predictive power of God is not present there.

---So I commend to you, dear reader, the only true and tested Word of God: The Bible. Heaven and Earth may pass away, but it will never pass away (Mat. 24:35) ...and we can trust these words from Jesus, because he gave a prophetic prediction (among other predictions) that he would be resurrected after being dead for three days (Mat. 12:40 + 16:21) ...and resurrect he did! (Click here to read evidence).

DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING

Now, when we compare the teachings of the Koran and the Bible, we encounter some significant differences and conflicts in teaching, such as the quranic idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross for people's sins, whereas the Bible clearly says that Jesus did die for the sins of those who trust and believe in him (Rom. 5:8).

People wonder which one to believe? --The Koran or the Bible?

Well, after considering the determinations of fulfilled prophetic predictions outlined above, the rational thinker must clearly rule in favor of the Bible's teaching over anything else, and reject any un-proven writing which contradicts the Bible, because the Bible is the only religious book on Earth which demonstrates the true prophetic power of God to accurately predict the future deeds of specific people in specific places during specific periods of time. YHWH-God said that we should not respect the authority or "fear" any supposed "prophet" who INcorrectly predicts the future, but rather, we should reject that man, because he is a false prophet.

I have completed all my pre-reqs and co-reqs for Nursing School. I am scheduled to start Nursing School in August. I am a recovering crack-addict who has been clean for sometime now. In the past I have been in treatment several times as well as in mental health facilities because of my addiction. I was just informed by someone that due to this background it will be almost impossible for me to get licensed as an R.N. Is this true. I would really like to be an E.R. nurse, and give back to society for all I have taken from it. Oh by the way I live in Florida.

Also which is the correct spelling for this book? One that has not been sugarcoated for westerners, and one that has not been augmented against the islamics by westerners?

An athiest is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in which he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state." That phrase, largely forgotten for nearly 150 years, was reintroduced to our lexicon in 1947 by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in his opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, a case holding that state funded transportation of all students to and from their schools, including parochial schools, was constitutional. The wall metaphor has since been accepted by most Americans, and many jurists, as the authoritative description of the interaction between religion and civil government countenanced by the First Amendment.

Don't just say Christianity.

Are not all non believers of the Koran considered infidels?