Bible versus Quran: 1000+ Differences & Contradictions
18 Sept. 2012
The Bible: Its Divergences from the Quran and Islam
Because some Muslims claim that according to the Christian Bible Jesus is a separate god without dependence on Yahweh, we list some of the places in the Bible which tell that Jesus got/gets his power from Yahweh. Some verses say this directly, others indirectly, but clearly. Many of the verses are quotes from Jesus - a reliable person also according to the Quran. And we remind you that both science and Islam - not from free will - have proved that the Bible is not falsified, this in spite of Muhammad's/the Quran's claims about falsifications in the Bible (Muhammad's only way to save his new religion and platform of power when he discovered the many and great discrepancies between what he believed and told the Bible said, and what it really said - Muhammad did not know the Bible, and took his "Biblical" stuff from apocryphal stories, fantasy stories (f.x. about Dhu'l Quarnayn/Alexander the Great), local legends, etc. and even from fairy tales). But remember that we do not list all such ones - if you read the Bible, you will find more, especially of the indirect statements.
001 Matt.10/27: "All things have been committed to me (Jesus*) by my Father (Yahweh*)". All Jesus' commitments and his power regarding this he got from Yahweh - it is Yahweh who is his source of power. Also note that he used the words "my Father" about Yahweh.
002 Matt.12/29: "But if I (Jesus*) drive out demons by the Spirit of God (Yahweh*)- - -". His power for doing this is from Yahweh.
003 Mark 10/22: "All things have been committed to me (Jesus*) by my Father (Yahweh*)". All Jesus' committments and his power regarding this he got from Yahweh - it is Yahweh who is Jesus' source of power. Also note that he used the words "my Father" about Yahweh.
004 John 5/19: "- - - the Son (Jesus*) can do nothing by himself - - -". Jesus can do nothing unless he gets power from Yahweh.
005 John 5/26: "- - - he (Yahweh*) has granted the Son (Jesus*) to have life in itself". It is granted by Yahweh - the source of power.
006 John 5/27: "- - - he (Yahweh*) has given him (Jesus*) authority - - -". It is given Jesus by Yahweh - the source of power.
007 John 5/30: "By myself (Jesus*) I can do nothing - - -". This sentence speaks for itself - without the power from Yahweh, the only god according to the Bible, Jesus is powerless.
008 John 5/36a: "- - - the very work that the Father (Yahweh*) has given me (Jesus*) - - -". What Jesus did was Yahweh's dictation. Jesus is Yahweh's helper and likely second of command, but Yahweh is the one and only boss.
009 John 5/36b: "- - - the Father (Yahweh*) has sent me (Jesus*)". Jesus is the representative - a messenger - from Yahweh.
010 John 5/43: "I (Jesus*) have come in my Father's (Yahweh's*) name - - -". Jesus is a representative - a messenger - from Yahewh.
011 John 10/18: "This command I (Jesus*) received from my Father (Yahweh*)". Comments not necessary - it is Yahweh who is the source of power and it is Yahweh who makes the disitions, according to the Bible.
012 John 10/32: "I (Jesus*) have shown you (Jews) many miracles from the Fater". The miracles Jesus made according to the Bible, in reality were performed by Yahweh according to this, not really bu Jesus - the power behind the miracles was Yawhe's.
013 John 14/31: "- - - I (Jesus*) do exactly what my Father (Yahweh*) has commanded me". No comment necessary. It is Yahweh who is the supreme ruler.
014 John 15/10: "- - - just as I (Jesus*) have obeyed my Father (Yahweh*) - - -". It is Yahweh who has the command. Jesus is a helper and perhaps second in command, but it is Yahweh who is the god.
015 Acts 1/4: "- - - the gift (the Holy Spirit*) my (Jesus'*) Father (Yahweh*) promised - - -". It is Yahweh, not Jesus, who has the final command over the Holy Spirit, too.
016 Acts 2/22: "- - - miracles, wonders and signs, which God (Yahweh*) did among you (the Jews*) through him (Jesus*) - - -". It is Yahweh who has the power of makeing miracles (though he can delegate such power to others).
017 Acts 2/36: "- - - God (Yahweh*) has made this Jesus - - -". It is Yahweh who is the power behind Jesus.
018 1. Cor. 1/24: "- - - Christ the power of God (Yahweh*) and the wisdom of God". Jesus represents the power and wisdom of Yahweh, but the word is "represents". It is Yahweh who has is.
019 1. Cor. 11/3: "- - - the head of Christ is God (Yahweh*)". A clear message: Only Yahweh is the ruler.
020 1. Cor. 15/27: "Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him (Jesus*) it is clear that this does not include God (Yahweh*) himself, who put everything under Christ". It is Yahweh - the god - who has the power, but has delegated more or less all power concerning Earth to Jesus. This according to the Bible.
021 Eph. 1/22: "And God (Yahweh*) placed all things under placed everything under his (Jesus'*) feet and appointed him to be head - - -". Jesus got his power from Yahweh.
022 1. John 5/10: "- - - the testimony God (Yahweh*) has given about his Son (Jesus*)". According to this, that information is from Yahweh himself, and thus should be reliable: Jesus is an ambassador for Yahweh and a close relative, but Yahweh is the one and only god.
As said above: If you read the NT you will find more places where it is told that the source of power is Yahweh - the one and only god - but that Yahweh has delegated much power to Jesus. Especially you wil find a number of more places where this is said indirectly.
"What the Bible writes is what the Christians believe". And they believe there only is one god, Yahweh - also named God.
Said on Internet about http://www.1000mistakes.com :
"Thank you for the link to www.1000mistakes.com - there I find the answers I need".
A Muslim: "www.1000mistakes.com is the strongest attack I have ever seen on a religion". (When a list of correct quotes + logically correct comments to the quotes is a strong attack on a religion, something is wrong with that religion.)
"Not a nuisance, but a danger to Islam".
"The most dangerous book Islam has ever met". (Perhaps http://www.1000quran-comments.com is a good number 2?)
"Wow, I did not know that this much was wrong in the Quran. This is going to be a standard reference book". (It seems already to be so.)
We appreciate comments to "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and "1000+ Comments on the Quran", but there are so many, that we only have time to answer some of them. Sorry for this. (NB: Impolite comments will normally not be answered. To be impolite in a discussion is a sure sign for that one is a hypocrite according to the Quran, and you do not want us to mingle with hypocrites?)
1000+ differences between
THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN
1000+ comments about differences, etc. in the two books, in their gods, in their prophets, and in their religions, etc.
Also see the other "books" under http://www.1000mistake.com
This "book" contains these 5 main parts:
Part I: Contents and prologue.
Part II: The Bible. Mainly point which directly or indirectly differ or conflicts with the Quran and Islam (we point to far from all such points - you will find many more if you go looking). Part II is subdivided in 3 - A, B, and C.
Part III: The Quran. "Biblical" stuff differing, conflicting, or not really based on the Bible. But as the Quran is our main topic, we also have commented on MUCH stuff relevant for understanding the differences between the Bible and the Quran, and the differences in ways of thinking, moral codes, etc. etc., included some stuff where there is nothing similar in the Bible. Part III is subdivided in 2 - A and B.
Part IV: "Biblical" stuff directly conflicting or differing in the two books, or without real root in the Bible, etc.
Part V: Epilogue/conclusions.
Some relevant information
Contents + prologue - some information and questions it may pay to know.
The Bible: "Encyclopedically" - based on book, chapter, and verse. In this part the texts are from the Bible. The part is split in 3: A) The Old Testament. B) The New Testament. C) Points sorted on themes. The quotes are from NIV. As this is the newest translation it is likely the translation is built on even more knowledge (f.x. about the old languages) than older translations, and therefore the most correct one.
The Quran: "Encyclopedically" - based on surah and verse. These texts are from the Quran. This part is split in 2: Section A) Texts from the Quran in the same order you find them there. Section B) Many of the points sorted on themes.
As Muslims without too much knowledge about the Quran sometimes claim we are making up quotes from that book, we mention that if nothing else is said, all our quotes from the Quran is from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation to English - according to Islam one of the 3 best translations ever (there have been more than 60), and perhaps the very best. Anyone may check if our quotes are correct or not.
List over (many of) the points where the texts in the Bible and the Quran directly conflicts each other, the Bible is wrongly quoted, or where "Biblical" stuff in the Quran is not from the Bible, etc.
Short epilogue: Unavoidable conclusions.
BIBLICAL TEXTS WRONGLY QUOTED IN THE QURAN, NOT REALLY FROM THE BIBLE, OR IN OTHER WAYS COLLIDING WITH THE BIBLE'S' TEXTS AND/OR INTENDED MEANING. Plus other quotes and comments on the differences between the two books and the religions.
One comment to Christians: Some of you will dislike some points below, because we try to be totally neutral and sticking to the facts. For one thing this is necessary in a work like this. For another thing Muslims have some standard ways to flee from facts and arguments they do not like, and one of them is: "This is just Christian (or Jewish) propaganda, and then it means nothing and can be dismissed - no reason for looking into their facts". Nobody trying to reach also Muslims will succeed except in extremely few cases, unless everything is matter of fact and neutral - and even then it is difficult, because it is hard to have to face that perhaps the basis for one's life and culture is questionable.
Besides we are not religious persons, and do not write this for religious reasons. Our motif is the intellectual facts that for one thing all the errors, etc. in the Quran prove that there is no god behind that book, and thus not behind Muhammad or Islam, and for another thing that Islam like you meet it in the Quran - Islam 1 - and especially in the Surahs from Medina (the youngest and thus according to Islam's rules for socalled abrogation, the weightiest ones) - is a religion of apartheid, suppression, distaste/hate, and war. Undocumented nice words like "Islam is the Religion of Truth" and "Islam is the Religion of peace" are just that - nice words.
And any harsh religion of suppression, Nazi ideology (C. G. Young), and war should be looked into - especially if there proveably (no omniscient god makes mistakes, contradictions, invalid logic, etc. by the hundreds) is no god behind it, like in Islam. This is the reason for our "books".
Part I: Contents and prologue
Part II: The Bible
Section A: The Old Testament - arranged according to "book", chapter, and verse number.
Section B: The New Testament - arranged according to "book", chapter, and verse number.
Part III: The Quran
Section A: Texts from the Quran arranged according to surah and verse number.
Section B: Some topics sorted by themes.
Part IV: Direct divergences between the Bible and the Quran, the Bible wrongly quoted, or "Biblical" quotes not from the Bible: (Not ready - will be added later.)
"Biblical" stuff directly conflicting or differing in the two books, or without real root in the Bible. Most of the "Biblical" stuff in the Quran is not from the Bible, but from folklore, made up apocryphal stories (f.x. the story about Jesus and the clay bird), made up short stories (the tales about Alexander the Great/Dhu'l Qarnayn is f.x. "borrowed" from a short story of what we today would call "Fantasy - the Sword and Sorcery type", made by a Syrian in the 6. century), legends, fairy tales (f.x. Luqman - surah 31 - was a well known character (a wise man) from old Arab fairy tales), and freely made up stuff (f.x. for Jesus to preach about Allah - a known heathen god (al-Lah) in a neighboring country - was politically, socially, and religiously an impossibility in Israel at the time of Jesus). And similarly for Jesus to tell that he would be followed by a prophet named Ahmad (another version of the name Muhammad) in 61/6: For one thing prophesies in the Bible about future persons never use proper names, and for another the life of the first Christians shows that this "prophesy" was totally unknown to them. Or the claims about Muhammad foretold in the Bible - f.x. 5. Mos. 18/15+18 (but: Anybody reading 5. Mos. 18/15 or 18/18, also should read 5. Mos. 17/15 and 5. Mos. 20/8 and have documented what Moses in his speech meant with "your (the Jews'*) own brothers"). or John 14/16, which all three are quoted totally out of context, the meaning twisted, and a lot of wishful thinking or stronger added, to get the result one needed - because those results are needed by Islam as the Quran states that Muhammad is foretold in both OT and NT, and not to find him, means that the Quran is wrong on this point, too).
But there is one more point here concerning Muhammad in the Bible: The word used in the Arab original, "maktub", is stronger than just "written". Verse 7/157 in reality states that Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Torah (the 5 "Books of Moses") and in the Gospels. This is obviously wrong - not even the strongest believer in Islam can claim that Muhammad is clearly mentioned any of those two places (that is why they have to cherry-pick and claim wrong meanings of the texts to be able to find him - if he is not clearly found, they at least have to find him hidden there). Thus no matter if Muhammad really was hidden in 5. Mos. 18/15 and 18/18 or other places, the Quran all the same had been wrong, because Muhammad definitely is not clearly mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
The stuff in Part IV is extracted from Parts II and III, but the line between what to include in Part IV and what not, sometimes was vague.
Part V: Epilogue
Epilogue and some unavoidable conclusions.
Some thoughts about the mistakes in the Quran and "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" after 4 years on the net (2012 AD):
There are a number of people trying to tell on Internet that there are no mistakes in the Quran. There even are a number trying to tell us that we do not understand the Quran, and that there are no mistakes in that book - we just misunderstand or do not know what we are talking about. When one knows a little about how peculiar the human psyche and wishful thinking may be - not to mention these two combined, and perhaps even added a little fanatical blindness - one is not surprised about such claims. But there are just two groups really able not to see at least a number of the mistakes:
The ones with too little knowledge to see them - f.x. no, too little, or wrong education and knowledge.
The ones refusing to see them. These normally are blinder than the first ones.
And there also only are two groups of people who after all are able to see a lot of the mistakes in a book claiming to be from an omniscient god, and who then all the same are able to believe that the many errors can be explained away, and thus that the mistakes "disappear" or are "explained" away, and "there are no mistakes in the Quran" - without even starting to feel something is wrong, or feel that one or a few cases might be explainable, but that this enormously many should have to start alarm bells ringing:
The ones not able to or not used to think things over themselves.
The ones who do not want to think things over. These normally are the blindest.
To move Isaiah Berlin's (professor of philosophy in Oxford and Harvard, and more) words from 1950 about intellectual dishonesty, corruption, and manipulation under political dictatorships (which was what he wrote about), into the religious dictatorship under Islam:
"The practice of (many Islamic states and societies*) - - - is not at all the training of the critical, or solution finding, powers of their citizens, nor yet the development in them of any capacity for special insights or intuitions as regarded to reveal the truth. It consists of something which any nineteenth century thinker with respect for himself would have regarded with genuine horror - the training of individuals incapable of being troubled by questions which, when raised and discussed, endanger the stability of the system (f.x. of Islam*); the building and elaboration of a strong framework of institutions (f.x. madrasas - religious schools*), "myths" (f.x. many Hadiths, included all about miracles performed by or happening around Muhammad are proved by the Quran to be made up myths - and there are f.x. the myths that all opposition to Islam is because of little knowledge, much hate, or Jews*), habits of life and thought intended to preserve it from sudden shocks or slow decay. This is the intellectual outlook which attends the raise of totalitarian ideologies - the substance of the hair-raising satires of Georg Orwell and Aldus Huxley - the state of mind in which troublesome questions appear as a form of mental perturbation, noxious to the mental (and religious*) health of individuals and, when too widely discussed, to the health of the society. - - - (Skeptical thoughts/debates/facts are looked at*) above all as being dangerous deviations from that line to which individuals and societies must adhere if they are to continue in a state of well-ordered, painless, contended, self-perpetuating equilibrium".
A small curiosity: Many a Muslim claim that NT is not reliable, because the letters are written years after, and the Gospels a few decades after Jesus disappeared to Heaven.
But most of them believe strongly in the Hadiths, which were written centuries after Muhammad died! (around 850 AD)
And all of them believe strongly in the Quran, which did not get its final forms (NB: plural) until centuries later (around 900 AD). The two forms of the Quran used today, are two of the 14 - fourteen - varieties which were canonized even later + 6 others which were well accepted, but with not as strong position as the 14. (See http://www.1000mistakes.com and http://www.1000quran-comments.com (here all the 20 are listed*) about this.) All were mainly based on the often unclear texts of caliph Uthman's official edition from the 650's AD (but at least 4 other editions existed at that time, and they were too valuable to be destroyed, even though caliph Uthman ordered so).
You will find that some of the stuff from the Quran in this "book" is similar to in "1000+ Comments on the Quran", but there the main thing is fact-finding, whereas in this "book" the religious aspects/facts come more to the fore - but when you are comparing 2 claimed holy books, also this is fact-finding (this book is not procelyting, but as said fact-finding - we are not religious people - though not anti-religious - which most likely you can see from our writing).
A short history:
The pagan god Il is the oldest god known in Arabia. He was a general god, but over the many centuries he - at least in south Arabia - he became the moon god, and his name changed to al-Ilah (things like this happen when there is no written material to nail down the claims and "facts"). More centuries passed and he became the main god - connected to the sun goddess and to his 3 goddess daughters al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, and his many other daughters, the angels. As even more time passed, some started to name him Allah - it is slightly easier to pronounce than al-Lah. Allah was the head of some 360 or more Arab gods.
One does not know for sure when Muhammad was born, but likely in 570 AD. His father died before Muhammad was born, and his mother when he was 6. But his grandfather and later one of his uncles gave him a good and loving upbringing according to Islamic sources, which there on this point is no reason to distrust. 25 years old he married a 40 year old rich widow, Khadiyya. And here is a small mystery: It is not said that she had children when they married, and Muhammad never got children later, except the son Ibrahim (mother: the Coptic slave Marieh), in spite of his very many women (at least 36 are known by name). All the same the two got a number of children. How many is not 100% clear - you find lists of from 5 to 8, but normally it is said 6. (Possible children with Khadijah: Qasim, (Tayyib, Tahir - seldom mentioned), Abdullah - these died as infants - Zaynab ca. 600-629, Ruqayya ca. 605-624, Umm Kalthum ca. 600-630, Fatime ca. 605 (615?)-632. Most lists do not have the boys Tayyib and Tahir.) That a 40 year old woman at that time should get 6 or more children is a bit special - as is the fact that Muhammad later and in spite of much sexual activity got maximum one more child. One theory is that their dates of birth are "modified", and that they - or at least most of them - really were children from Khadiyya's earlier marriage, whom Muhammad took over. Another is that the marriage was one of convenience: In the old times it happened that rich women married someone so as to have an "alibi" when "contacting" a man who was prohibited for them - a married man f.x. (remember here that in the old Arabia alcohol and sex were "the two delicious things", and an arrangement like this far from improbable), and that she got the children with this "hidden" man - or some with her 1. husband, and the rest with this man. Now Marieh also got a child. But she was a slave, and it far from is sure she enjoyed her much older owner too much - she may have been "out in the darkness" one or more nights. Or may be Muhammad only was nearly sterile, and made it a lucky time. No matter: A man with so many women (at least 36 as mentioned by name) and such an active sex life, but no or nearly no children, must have been sterile or at least nearly sterile. Muhammad liked young women - except for his rich first wife, all his long time wives were from 20 to 46 years younger than him, and thus very much in the child-bearing age, (except the youngest Aishah, who was just 6 years old when they married, and 9 when Muhammad started to have sex with her.
In 610 AD Muhammad started to get religious messages, he claimed. As it is likely he in the beginning believed in them himself, the most likely explanation is mental disturbance. Modern medical science suspects TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy - which can give just the kinds of illusions and fits it is told Muhammad got. (His own and Islam's explanation - that he got it from a god - is out of the question, as too much is wrong in his texts, and no omniscient god have wrong facts, contradictions, invalid logic, helpless explanations, etc.). The first years Islam was a rather peaceful religion - until after Muhammad fled from Mecca to Yathrib - later renamed Medina - in 622 AD, and started as a highway man and robber baron. In a short time the religion was changed to one of dishonesty (thieving/looting and acceptance/use of lies and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/225a, 5/89a, 16/91b, 66/2a), suppression, apartheid, blood and war. According to numbers we have found, Muhammad and his followers were involved in at least 83 armed incidents - most of them raids for stealing/looting, extortion, and slave taking. Even the 3 among Muslims famous battles - Badr, Uhud, and Medina - were battles (of defence) in a war of aggression started and kept alive by Muhammad's raids and murders. All the stealing and extortion - and rape and slave taking - attracted followers, though. Until 622 AD he only got some dozen - perhaps a hundred - followers. When following him started to pay well, warriors flocked to him, and in 630 AD he was military strong enough to march on and take Mecca. He died in 632 AD - perhaps by poison. (It in case would be typical, as of the first 11 caliphs - top leaders - only 1 (abu Bakr) died a natural death. The religion of peace.) We know he was poisoned at least once, and that this he suffered from the rest of his life. It may be this poison which finally did its work. But there also are rumors about a second poisoning. We will never know for sure the facts here, but at least he died unexpectedly while planning a military expedition to the west, and he died rather fast.
Islam continued Muhammad's military expansion, partly for riches and power, and partly for spreading the religion. Islam was introduced "on the point of the sword", or by compulsions backed by the sword, most places. Often Jews and Christians were permitted to keep their religion - but as suppressed and "milked" outcasts in the culture. Pagans mostly received a worse deal - there are many horror stories. (We have seen the number 200 million dead directly and indirectly from Muslim warfare. The victims from Muslim slave hunting - dead or captives - may amount to a similar number only in Africa.) But at least partly because Islam opposed all knowledge not related to the religion (see 22/3a in Part III (from the Quran) - an interesting one), the culture stagnated, and the West got the chance to catch up and pass them. What had happened if a religion and culture like Islam had had the industrial revolution, and the knowledge, power and weapons this produced? Had we had something like North Pakistan, Saudi Arabia without the oil, Muslim Africa, etc. all over the world today? Muslims complain about the Crusaders, but often behaved much worse themselves. (Some of the horror stories connected to Muslims and Islam really are horror - f.x. in India and Africa, do not read about it if you have tendencies to nightmares.) The military expansion finally was stopped by Europe and later also America. But even today the official goal for the Quran and thus for Islam is to conquer and suppress all non-Muslims and "introduce" Islam on them - and this a religion of suppression, dishonesty, apartheid, and war, whose own "holy" book by means of all its errors and worse, proves that no god was involved in its making or delivery - no omniscient god makes mistakes, and the Quran is full of mistaken facts and other kinds of mistakes, etc.
As for the Quran's connection to the Bible, this is quite clear: Large parts of the Quran are built on Biblical stuff. But as Muhammad had no Bible, he took his stories from apocryphal (made up) stories, folklore, legends, fairy tales, and at least one cock-and-bull story we today would call science fiction, type sword and sorcery: The story about Alexander the Great (Dhu'l Qarnayn) in surah 18/83-98 - a story written by a Syrian early in the 6. century (the sources for most of Muhammad's stories in the Quran are known). When he later discovered how much he had told the Bible said, was wrong compared to what the Bible really said, his only way to save his new religion and platform of power, was to claim the Bible was falsified - like always for him without the slightest valid proof. Neither science nor Islam has ever been able to find even one falsified point in the Bible - some mistakes (though far fewer than in the Quran - far fewer), but not one proved falsification. Islam also is totally unable to explain how tens of thousands of identical and never contradicting falsifications of manuscripts spread over 3 continents can have been done - and done in such ways that nobody discovered it and in such elegant ways that modern science is unable to see the scratching, the different inks, the different hand writings, etc. Not to mention explaining how to make bishops agree to falsifications in the "holy Bible" at all - exactly as easy as making ayatollahs agree on falsifying the "holy Quran", and for the same reason - plus how to make f.x. Jews and Christians agree on what to falsify and the exact new texts. (The plain truth is that science and also Islam each has proved very strongly that the Bible is not falsified, by being unable to find proved falsification at all, and being unable to give believable explanations even for how it could be possible to do it.)
(2/225ab, 5/89aa+b), 16/91b, 16/92a+b, and 66/2a)
Some central questions:
1. How can one combine 100% predestination by Allah like the Quran states several places, with (even partial) free will for man?
2. How can prayers for f.x. betterment in life (or death) have any effect in Islam, if Allah has predestined every detail in your life according to his Plan which nobody and nothing can change? - betterment will change that Plan, and is thus impossible. (We may add that science has proved that prayers to help others who do not know about your prayers for them, has no effect. If they know about your prayers for them, the result may be slightly different, because of the so-called placebo effect - your mind's effect on your body.)
3. The same for forgiving - it will change Allah's unchangeable Plan, and is thus impossible.
4. The same for punishment and reward - both in case will change Allah's unchangeable Plan.
5. If Allah is omniscient and knows everything like the Quran states MANY places, why then does he have to test and test even his followers, and what can he learn when he already knows the answer? The point is even more meaningless when you add the fact that the Quran states that he predestines every detail in your life, and thus it is he who decide - on beforehand - what the result of the test will be. (But the logic is easy to see if testing just was an argument for Muhammad to get more and wilder and obedient warriors and other followers.)
6. There are many "degrees" in Paradise according to the Quran - at least 4 or 6 or more gardens (according to Hadiths - at least 4 according to 55/46+62 in the Quran) with Firdaws as the best, and then there are the higher heavens. The Quran further states that you in Paradise will have your family - and houris - around you. But how is it possible for all in an extended family to qualify for just the same place - "grade" - in paradise? F.x. how many of Muhammad's family qualified for the same level as he - the 7. Heaven?
7. Muhammad claimed the Bible is falsified. How was it possible to decide on what to falsify, what new texts to use, to make Jews and Christians and sects agree on what and how to falsify, how was it possible to make f.x. believing bishops agree to falsifications (as easy as making believing ayatollahs agree to falsification of the Quran), how to evade contradictions when things were falsified, how to find and to falsify each and every of likely some hundred thousand (some 44ooo older than 610 AD are known even today) manuscripts spread over 3 continents in times with slow and difficult communications, how to make every falsification so perfect that modern science cannot find anything - the scratching, different ink, different hand-writing, etc. - and not least how to hide such an enormous conspiracy which needed literally thousands of conspirators, so that nobody ever discovered the swindle? Islam claims the Bible is falsified, but as normal for their central claims, they have been unable to find even one proved falsification - and also unable to explain how it could be done. And not least: This enormous operation - for what reason? (The Quran's easy reason; a better life on Earth, does not hold water - for a good life on Earth the Quran was better fit with its permission to use dishonesty, stealing/looting, extortion, etc.
8. How is it possible to believe that an omniscient god who says his words are clear and to be understood literally, is so clumsy and helpless in expressing himself, that clever Muslims have to explain away hundreds and more mistakes, contradictions, etc. by "explaining" what his words "really" means? Somewhere bells should start ringing.
9. If a god created you, he also created your brain, and hardly just for filling the space between your ears. How is it then possible to listen to the ones telling you not to use this extremely valuable gift from your god(?) - "do not think, just believe - and believe what just I tell you, even though there is much wrong in what I say, and not a single proof"? - and this for something as essential as the possible eternity? You would not even buy a second hand car on those premises - but for the whole perhaps next life to accept gambling on blind belief, without even checking - not if the tales are true, but not even if there is a possibility for that they may be true - that you would do?! - without using the second most valuable gift the possible god gave you!
10. How is it possible to explain that there are some 44ooo (the number varies some from one source to another) manuscripts older than 610 AD (when Muhammad started his mission) relevant the Bible, but not one single relevant to a book like the Quran (even though Islam claims such books were sent down by the tens of thousands to each and every claimed messenger or prophet - at least 128ooo according to Hadiths), or relevant to a god like Allah, or a religion like Islam?
Short about apocryphal books:
There are two categories of these. There are the ones accepted by the religious establishment or at least greater parts of it. These are reckoned to be - to quote Martin Luther - "books which cannot be reckoned as equal to the books in the Holy Scripture, but all the same useful and good to read" (good, religious books are written and read even today). These books are called the deutero ("later") canonized books (as opposed to the ones in the Bible which are called the proto ("early") canonized books), and they are these books (though the list may vary a little from one organized church to another):
The book of Tobit (or Tobias).
The book of Judith.
The additions to the book of Esther.
The book of Sirak/Sirac.
The book of Baruk/Baruc.
The letter of Jeremiah.
Additions to the book of Daniel.
The first book of the Maccabeans.
The second book of the Maccabeans.
The third book of the Maccabeans.
The prayer of Manasseh.
Third book of Ezra (also called First book of Esdras).
Fourth book of Ezra (also called Second book of Esdras).
The 151. Psalm.
These books are made during the period from ca. 200 BC to ca. 100 AD. In some editions of the Bible a number of these books are included - often as a separate part - and this is the reason why the number of books in the Bible varies. They are common in the Catholic churches, accepted to have some, though not full, value - but normally not included in the Bible by the Protestant and Anglican churches, and seldom and never in the Bibles in the Reformed churches.
These are the accepted apocryphal OT books, and in religious connection these are the ones meant from OT.
Then there are the others - the books purely made up for some reason or other, normally either by fringe "prophets" or fringe sects to "adjust" the Bible or make "correct" texts fitting their teachings (the Quran seems to be one of these apocryphal ones, though it is so far out compared to the Bible, that it normally is not included even in these books). These normally are from late in the earliest Christian area and up. F.x. Muslims in Spain produced a number of such books around 800 AD to "adjust" the Christian teaching to Islam (the famous and infamous "Gospel of Barnabas" may be one of these, though it is possible it is made at the Caliph's court in Bagdad even later). WHEN WE IN OUR BOOKS MENTION THE APOCRYPAL BOOKS FROM OT, IT IS ALWAYS THESE CLEARLY MADE UP ONES WE REFER TO (AND SIMILAR FOR NT), IF NOTHING ELSE IS SPECIFIED. (For apocryphal books from NT see just below.)
From NT (NB: There are many scriptures which pretend to be original and true ones. Here are chosen some claimed gospels, but there are more ones and there are letters, etc. Some are "good reading", though not always quite reliable, others are far out and obviously falsifications made up to serve a purpose - like the ones Muslims in Spain produced in the 8. century to tell Christians that they were wrong, and that Islam was the right religion - like "The Gospel after Barnabas" we mentioned above, though just that one may be younger than Spain in the 8. century (there as mentioned is a chance it instead was made at the caliph's court in Bagdad in the 15. century):
Many of the old, "adjusted" or purely made up apocryphal books were Gnostic (name for a number of semi-Christian sects, often mixed with pagan ideas/belief and Greek philosophy).
The Gospel of Thomas. (A Gnostic "gospel" from around 150 AD.)
The Secret Book of Jacob. (Also Gnostic - Ca. 100 - 150 AD.)
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. (Gnostic. From around 100 AD or perhaps somewhat earlier.)
The Gospel of Peter. (From around 200 AD or (likely) older.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark. (Gnostic. Likely older than 200 AD.)
Papyrus Egerton 2. (Likely one of many which were made in Egypt around 100 - 200 AD.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840. (Egypt, likely around or somewhat before 200 AD.)
The Gospel of the Salvatore. (Egypt. Perhaps around 150 - 200 AD.)
Jacob's Proto Gospel. (One of many "gospels" about the child Jesus, about his birth, etc. 100 - 200 AD ?.)
The Child Gospel of Thomas. (One of many "gospels" about the child Jesus. Likely 2. or 3. century.)
The Gospel of Bartholomew. (Likely 2. century - some parts likely younger.)
The Gospel of Nicodemus. (Completed likely in 6. century, but chapters 1 - 16 likely from 3. century).
When it comes to NT and its apocryphal ones, for one thing there are many such apocryphal ones, for another there once were many more - it simply was a branch of literature to exaggerate some. None of them was ever canonized, but some all the same "so good to read" that even the church used them - not like the books in the Bible, but as good religious novels to read. Then there were a lot of books lay people liked to read, even though the church did not use them, and finally there was a great quantity of books and scriptures obviously made up or made for other purposes than just teaching about Jesus and Yahweh. F.x. the ones made up by Islam to "show" Christians that Islam was the right religion - especially Spanish Muslims around 800 AD are infamous here. When we use the word apocryphal about books related to NT, we mean all the made up ones - good or bad - but perhaps primarily the last category.
As mentioned it is likely the Quran at least partly is one of the apocryphal scriptures - one of the extreme ones. And apocryphal books/scriptures as indicated, too often were books or scriptures made up to fit and promote religious ideas and thinking not very honest persons had - to promote their religious ideas or to strengthen their platforms of power or both - religion often was (and is) used as a platform of power by reckless persons. We may add that many scientists think Muhammad himself the first years believed in his teaching. (This strengthens the theory that he had a mental disease giving hallucinations - modern medical science suspects TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) which can give fits plus just this kind of religious illusions. There also is the theory that the Quran is from the dark forces, but personally we are skeptical to that; not even a devil would deliver a book of a quality like the Quran, as he had to know that sooner or later all the errors, etc. would be noticed, and the book lose credibility - though of course a god might force him to use the mistakes so that persons using their brain should see the trap.)
1: Muslims claim - and believe - that everything in the Quran is plain and easy and not possible to misunderstand. But please read a few ISLAMIC comment books on the Quran before you claim this the next time - there is very much which is unclear or which can have more than one meaning. We may recommend Muhammad Asad: "The Message of the Quran" or Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "The meaning of the Quran" - both are highly recommended by Islam, and we mention them because the language in them is so plain, that everybody can read them. Those books are trying to explain or explain away hundreds of unclear points in the Quran.
2: Remember that "ways of reading" just is another expression for "different versions of the texts". Muslims easily forgets this (many even honestly believe it is not so). All the same Islam claims there only is one version of the Quran. To camouflage the error they call it "different ways of reading" - which sounds better than the fact that this just is another expression for the word "versions".
3: Before you the next time claim that "the Quran of today is the exact words of Muhammad down to the last comma", check this piece of information with Islamic sources you rely on (sorry, just here your imam or mullah is not reliable - go higher up): Already before Uthman made his official version of the Quran, there were at least 4 versions circulating. But as Uthman's version was written in an incomplete alphabet, it often was - and is - difficult or impossible to know exactly what Muhammad meant. Because of this in Islam there after some time were dozens or more versions of the Quran. These were reduced to 7 . 2 = 14 canonized versions (a work lead by the learned ibn Mujahid - died 935 AD) + 3 good versions (. 2 = 6) + 4 accepted versions (= 24 all together (+ 4 older ones)). Over the centuries most of them drifted out of use, and today 2 are in active use (Wars after Nafi and Hafs after 'Asim) - one in parts of Africa, the other in the rest of the world. But what chance is it that just these two are the exact words of Muhammad? - and in case which one of the two? (And by the way: The comma did not exist in Arabia when Uthman’s Quran was written. Thus the Quran in no case can be "Muhammad's exact words down to the last comma", like some Muslims claim - and many honestly believe.)
4: The Arab alphabet was incomplete at the time of Uthman. It lacked most of the vowels, some consonants were written so similar that one often cannot see the difference, the diacritical points (to signify some letters) did not exist, and also other marks today used when writing did not exist - f.x. the comma as mentioned. Because of this very often it is impossible to know exactly what word is meant many places in the Quran (this is the main reason for "the different ways of reading" the Quran). Do not rely on our words - check also this with Muslim sources you find reliable. But how can one on this background really trust loose, not proved claims like "the Quran of today is the exact words of Muhammad, down to the last comma"?
Overview over the 28 more or less official editions of the Quran through history:
There were a lot more of unofficial versions - that was why the official ones had to be made and authorized.
Before Utman had his official edition made - not later than 656 AD - there were 4 much used edition - and they varied not a little.
Utman's edition helped in reducing the virr-varr, but because it was written in an incomplete alphabet - no vowels, no diacritical points, no sign like comma, full stop, etc. it often was and still is difficult or impossible to understand exactly what the texts meant, and different writers guessed different meanings - a sample: If you have the consonants "h" and "s" and know they represent a word, the word at least may be "hose" or "house" or "his" or "has" - and soon the virr-varr was even greater.
Finally one of the top scholars (the learned ibn Mujahid - died 935 AD - as mentioned above) and some helpers sat down and made a list of 7 edition which became after a fashion canonized, but as each existed in 2 varieties, this meant that 14 varieties were canonized. As the expression "varieties of the Quran" is taboo in Islam, the reality was camouflaged by naming it "ways of reading". These 14 were (NB: The Years are not accurate, but most of them are correct within 2 - 3 years):
Maker: Town: Dead (AH/AD): Reteller: Dead: Reteller: Dead:
Nafi Mecca (169/786) Qalun (220/835) Wars (197/813)
ibn Katir Mecca (120?/738) Qunbul (291/904) al-Bazzi (250/865)
abu 'Amr Basra (148|55/766|72) abu 'Umar ad-Duri (246/861) abu Su'aib as-Suzi (261/875)
ibn 'Amir Damascus(118/737) ibn Dakwan (242/857) Hisam as-Sulami (245/860)
'Asim Kufa (127|9/743/45) abu Bakr Su'ba (193/809) Hafs (180/797)
Hamza Kufa (156/272) Halaf (229/844) Hallad* (220/835)
al-Kisa'i Kufa (189/805) abu l-Harit** (240/855) ad-Duri (246/861)
The years given are (Islamic years/international years) = (AH/AD) for their death.
Full names: *Hallad (abu 'Isa as-Saibani), **abu l-Harit (al-Lait ibn Halid al-Bagdadi).
Most of them slowly drifted out of use over the centuries, and today 2 are in daily use: Wars after Nafi and Hafs after 'Aim. Yes, even today there are 2 varieties of the Quran in active use in spite of Muslims' claims.
Then there were 3 well accepted, though not as strongly canonized - also they in 2 varieties each:
abu Ga'far Medina (130/744) abu l-Harit* (160/777) abu r-Rabi** (170/787)
Ja'qub ad-Hadrami Basra (205/821) Ruwais*** (234/849) Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min (234/849)
Halaf Kufa (229/844) Ishaq al-Warraq (286/899) Idris al-Haddad (292/908)
Full names: *abu l-Harit 'Isa ibn Wardan, **abu r-Rabi (Sulaiman ibn Muslim) ibn Gammasz (az-Zuhri), *** Ruwais (Muhammad ibn Mutwakkil.
Finally there were 4 accepetd ones:
ibn Muhaisin Mecca (123/740)
al-Jazidi Basra (202/838)
al-Hasan al-Basri Basra (110/130)
al-A'mas Kufa (148/764)
In addition there were the 4 older ones from before Uthman.
As for the relative significance of these in the old time on had a unit called "tariq" which represented how significant and how widely spread and used the different were reckoned to be - the higher tariq number, the better.
Nafi 144 Qalun 83 Wars 61 tariq
ibn Katir 73 Qunbul 32 al-Bazzi 41
abu 'Amr 154 abu 'Umar ad-Duri 126 abu Su'aib as-Suzi 28
ibn 'Amir 130 ibn Dakwan 79 Hisam as-Sulami 51
'Asim 128 abu Bakr Su'ba 76 Hafs 52
Hamza 121 Halaf 53 Hallad 68
al-Kisa'i 64 abu l-Harit 40 ad-Duri 24
abu Ga'far 52 abu l-Harit 'Isa 40 abu r-Rabi 12
Ja'qub ad-Hadrami 85 Ruwais 41 Rauh ibn 'Abdalmu'min 44
Halaf 32 Ishaq al-Warraq 22 Idris al-Haddad 9
5: Muhammad claimed the Bible was falsified - it is a never proved dogma in the Quran. But we know some 12ooo manuscripts or fragments from the Bible + some 32ooo others referring to/quoting the Bible, all older than 610 AD (the numbers vary some from one source to another, but the exact number does not matter - what counts is that the number is high). Neither science, nor Islam has been able to find even one proved falsification in all those manuscripts. Also Islam has been unable to explain how it was possible to falsify tens of thousands or more manuscripts spread over 3 continents - and not leave one manuscript not falsified - and all of them with exactly the same falsifications, and with none of the many changed texts contradicting each other, all this in the old times with slow and difficult travel. Neither is it explained how it was possible to make bishops, etc. falsify the Bible - it is just as easy as making ayatollahs falsify the Quran, and for just the same reasons - not to mention how to make f.x. Jews and Christians and sects agree on what to falsify and what new texts to use instead - - - or even: How to hide such a big and worldwide conspiracy? - it would need some thousands conspirators. Not even Muslims have heard about it, they only claim it has happened. The naive and impossible, but most used claims are that the NT was falsified in Nicaea in 325 AD - which cannot explain any of the facts we point to, or anything about manuscripts and fragments older than 325 AD, in addition to that the agenda for that meeting is well known, and no falsification of the Bible was discussed (on the contrary - one debated among other things how to get rid of falsifications and apocryphal ones) - and OT falsified by Ezra - but too many copies of the Jewish scriptures existed spread over all the ancient world, so Ezra had quickly been found out if he had even tried. Also: The Bible tells a lot about Ezra, but not that he did much writing.
And not least: How were they able to falsify all these old papers in such an elegant way that modern science is unable to find the scratching, the difference in the ink used, the difference in the hand-writing, etc.?
3 serious and essential points in the Quran to beware of before you go on reading:
1: Remember here that Muhammad without the tiniest proof or documentation claimed that the reason for all the differences between the Bible and the Quran was that the Bible was (claimed) falsified. (The real reason was that he did not know the Bible, but used texts from apocryphal stories, legends, and even fairy tales (f.x. Luqman - surah 31 - in the Quran is a fictive wise man from old Arab folklore and fairy tales) and other made up stories. Both science and even more so Islam (as they have searched harder) thoroughly have proved that this claim is not true, by being unable to find one single falsification among the some 300 known copies or fragments of the Gospels, the some 12ooo known copies or fragments of other Biblical scriptures, and the some 32ooo other manuscripts or fragments with quotes from or relevant references to the Bible, all older than 610 AD = before there was any reason to falsify Muhammad and his religion out of the Bible (NB: The numbers may vary some from one source to another). And not least: If Islam had found even one proved case of falsification in the Bible, the entire world had been told about it in vibrant and loud words. Islam (except many not too educated die-hards) is silent on that point - there are mistakes also in the Bible, but no falsifications (they also would be impossible to make in ways modern science had not found out long ago). The claim is wrong.
2: Muhammad claimed - also without the slightest proof (normal for him) - in the Quran that Yahweh just is another name for Allah, and that the two are the same god. This gave Muhammad's new religion background, history, respect and "weight". But the two gods are by far too different, and too fundamentally different, for this to be true. This is well documented - far beyond all reasonable and unreasonable doubt - in this book. Both empirical and circumstantial proofs for this are so strong, that it is a mystery why this wrong claim is not more strongly opposed than it is. The likely reason is that few know both the Bible and the Quran + are well enough aware of that the Bible is proved not falsified - a number of mistakes, but not falsifications - to really see the many and deep differences between the two gods; one the god of love, especially as you meet him in NT (less clearly so in OT, but strongly in NT and its New Covenant (f.x. Luke 22/20)), the other the god of accepted dishonesty, thieving/looting, rape, disregard or stronger for non-Muslims, apartheid, suppression and murder as working tools, and war. (If you want to protest on this, read first the entire Quran, and especially the 22 - 24 surahs from Medina - the youngest ones, and thus according to Islam's rules for so-called abrogation the "weightiest" ones. Then we may debate this afterwards. Islam's slogan that "Islam is the Religion of Peace" has very little to do with the Islam you find in the Quran, and especially not as you find it in the surahs from Medina, nearly all written after Islam was turned from a relatively peaceful religion in Mecca to a religion of suppression and war in Medina from 622 - 624 AD on.)
There only is one chance for that Yahweh and Allah is the same god: That he is strongly schizophrenic.
3: Muhammad claimed that Allah existed and was a real god - the only god. He further claimed that he - Muhammad - was Allah's prophet. Not one of these claims was ever proved (as opposed to Jesus, who - if the old books tell the truth - gave many proofs and in front of many witnesses for that something supernatural was involved). In the Quran there only were the words and claims of a man who believed in the use of dishonesty as a working tool - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth) both are based on texts in his Quran. He further used deceit/betrayal and even broken words/promises/oaths (2/225a, 5/89a, 16/91b, 66/2a2) - and he wanted respect and power and riches for bribes for more power - - - and women. The words of such a man - this man - are the only basis for the Quran, for the belief that Allah exists, and for Islam. (There is a marked difference between Islam's glossy picture of Muhammad and the real Muhammad, to use an understatement. And the only place and time Allah has ever "manifested" himself, is in the mouth of Muhammad.)
4: All places in the Bible it is made clear that it is Yahweh who makes things happen, and not other gods like f.x. Allah. This is so obvious that we comment on it just a few times.
NB: To distinguish God from Allah We use God's name from the old books: Yahweh.
Something to think over?
(Translated from the Scandinavian scientific magazine "Illustrert Vitenskap" ("Illustrated Science"), no. 6/2012, p.72):
"Religious fanatics hardly really is a real psychical illness - and it at least is not a form of psychopath which shows itself by anti-social behavior (with some exceptions*). Religion builds just on "pro-social" behavior, which just means a behavior based on backing up their community and to help others.
However, there is no doubt that the reward center of the brain and dopamine play a big role in the practicing of all kinds of religion. Prayers and other kinds of religious acts activates the reward center of the brain's frontal lobe, which has direct contact with the reward center, and patients with psychological illnesses like schizophrenia and OCD - which among other things is caused by augmented dopamine (dopamine is a chemical which in the brain makes you feel good, happy, and satisfied*) activity in the reward system - often grow more religious during their illness.
In addition must be mentioned that anti-psychotic medicine which lowers the brain's dopamine activity, often makes religious patients lose their interest for religion. Scientists even have found that there is a connection between the strength of one's belief and mutations in the gen for the brain's dopamine receptors - and that the same mutation also raises the probability for that one engages in risky behavior like hazard games and such things (included terrorism?*)".
In plain words: Religion, or at least the strength of one's belief, may be a result of brain activity and inherited gens, and not a reality. And not least that religious fanatics - like you f.x. find a lot of in some Muslim societies and organizations - may be caused of unnormal dopamine conditions in the brain of the persons (+ fanatism). Add this to the fact that the Quran favors and idealizes religious fanatism, and you have a condition not worthy any good and benevolent religion. But you then have a condition very convenient for militant members - and leaders - in a militant war religion like f.x. the Islam you find in the Quran, where war and the warrior are the topmost idol. (Luckily Islam today is the only surviving war religion - if you do not add some radical political, etc. movements where the ideology is of religious strength.)
It should be a reason for thinking - at least before starting killing people - that religion may be an integrated part of some peoples' brain, not a reality. Or at least that unnormal conditions in the brain and not the possible god may be the reason for religious fanatism and misdeeds.
Terrorists: Is it an imbalance of the dopamine production or reception in your brain plus indoctrination and not your god which makes you want to kill or terrorize? It is documented by science that this may be a cause. If there anywhere really is a good and benevolent god, he will not find that terrorizing and killing are good or benevolent deeds, no matter what the Quran says about this (remember here that no god ever was involved in a book of a quality like the Quran and all its mistakes and worse).
One essential point: Remember that there often is a difference between Muhammad's/the Quran's/Islam's words and Muslims' life. The Quran represents a religion of distaste, suppression, apartheid/Fascism, slave taking/trading (at least until they were forced to stop), looting, assassination of opponents, rape, blood, and war. But most Muslims (and Islam many places today) are just as human as you and me - not hating anyone, not wanting war, but with just the same dreams about a good and peaceful life as anyone else. It may be a problem that it is impossible to know which Muslim is dangerous and which one not - this even more so at the Quran permits dishonesty or worse in wide cases (f.x. to cheat women, or save one's money), and even advices it "if necessary" when it comes to defending or promoting the religion. But all the same the majority of Muslims are just peaceful people wanting to live a peaceful life.
BIBLICAL TEXTS WRONGLY QUOTED IN THE QURAN, NOT REALLY FROM THE BIBLE, OR IN OTHER WAYS COLLIDING WITH THE BIBLE'S' TEXTS AND/OR INTENDED MEANING. Plus other quotes and comments on the differences between the two books and the religions.
TEXTS FROM THE BIBLE
In Part II the texts are from the Bible and the texts are quoted in the same order you find them there. The quotes are from "New International Version" - NIV - simply because the newer translations are more likely to be correct, as they build on more knowledge about the old languages, etc.
We stress that in this section we mention far from all points which differs from the Quran. If you read the Bible with open eyes, you will find lots and lots of more differences. This means that if the Bible is the truth, the Quran's "Biblical" contents are even more far out, apocryphal or worse, and questionable, than our texts and quotes may indicate.
And as for the Bible being the truth, at least remember that in clear contradiction to Muhammad's and the Quran's claims that the Bible is falsified, this never documented claim is strongly proved wrong by both science and - against their will and wish - by Islam, both being unable to find even one proved falsification in the entire Bible. There may be mistakes in the Bible, but no falsification is ever proved. People and communities using made up or wrong arguments and claims, normally do so because they lack real ones.
>>> Go to Chapter 1
This work was uploaded with assistance from M. A. Khan, the author of Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, and the editor of islam-watch.org website.