Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Also visit:

The bible is a book that contains countless contradictions and corruptions as ironically the bible's own theologians openly admit!  They even claim that it contains fables and fairy tales:

101 Contradictions in the Bible!

My response to Quennel Gale's rebuttal to my article "Just who were the real authors of the Bible?":

This article is a refutation to Quennel Gale and Sam Shamoun's article which is located at: http://answer-islam.org/whowrotegospel.html.   It was mostly written by Quennel Gale.  Therefore, I will use "He wrote" when referring to the other side's writings.

He wrote:

Introduction

Here we will investigate Osama's theories about who the real authors of the Bible were. He claims that the NIV mentions about the Bible not being the true word of God. However after reading this and looking at his allegations, you will see just how false his arguments really are.

My response:

These old paragraphs of mine had been revised to these new ones:

Just who were the real authors of the Bible?

The quotes in green below are from the NIV Bible's commentary.  Before each Book/Gospel, there are few pages explaining the history of it.  I was shocked to see that most of today's Bible's Books and Gospels are doubtful and unreliable. I will start with the New Testament first, and then the Old Testament second.  The bibliography of the NIV Bible that I used is listed at the end of this article.

After thoroughly reading this article, I would like you to answer the following questions:

1- Is all of the Bible GOD's Divine Revelations?
2- Did the Prophets of GOD really write the Bible of today?
3- Is the Bible perfect?
4- Did man indeed corrupt the Bible?
5- Is the Bible of today reliable?

If your answer is no to most of or all of the above questions except for #4, then allow me to say that your faith has serious problems!

He wrote:

We will examine Osama's claim about the Bible being corrupt and whether the NIV actually says what he claims. We will look at these commentaries as well as expose his silly idea of Bible corruption. He says that we shouldn't take the Bible as the full word of God. However this is the same thing the NIV commentators also do. After reading this article you will see that all Muslim claims to biblical corruption, including those by Osama are very reliant on misquotes.

For one thing when you check out the name on Osama's page of his alleged Christian, you find out that you can't email him. We wonder why? Is Osama telling us that he isn't man enough to put a person's email to verify his claim along with allowing us to show both sides of the argument? It seems like this is the case. This information about Mark 16 is answered thoroughly in down in this paper.

My response:

Quennel Gale is known to be low, unprofessional and intimidating (often offensive) in his arguments.   Notice how he immediately said "Is Osama telling us that he isn't man enough to put a person's email to verify...."  It was requested by Mr. R. Mercer that I don't post his first name and email information, and that's exactly what I did.  If I remember correctly, I asked him if I could replace his first name with "R." and he said ok.

Just for the reader's convenience, Quennel Gale is a low-life loser who sends email bombs and possibly forged emails to non-Christians.  I have exposed him in good details with images as proofs that showed how much of a low-life loser he is.  Here is a sample image of what he did to my email box:

This is a small sample of this coward’s emails that he keeps sending
to me.  The above image contains only 10 emails from the 143 emails that he sent
to my AOL Account that I have listed on my main page. I captured this "JPG" file after deleting
most of his junk emails.

He wrote:

That is fine, however the NIV commentary is the same throughout all NIV bibles. But we also appeal to both the NIV Study bible and the NIV Living Insights Bible, which came a year later.

However Osama Abdallah insist that the NIV claims that the Bible was corrupted. He claims that his quotes prove his point and therefore he believes that the entire bible is false. Well lets show you the official NIV prefix commentary that is found in every NIV BIBLE. (NOTE THIS LETTER IS ALSO online at this link which is a response to claims about the NIV and its translation of God's word). We will present both preface information from the NIV Bible book as well as some excerpts from the site. Lets see what they say:

Here we see that the NIV publishers and authors look at the Bible as God's own revelation and not corrupted as Osama says that they claim!!!

My response:

Only a biased or an extremely foolish person would not see that the opinion of the NIV authors about the Bible is irrelevant, while the historical information that they provided that was backed by lots of books' references are the relevant information.  I used those quotes and clearly and irrefutably proved that most of the books and gospels of the Bible are very doubtful.

He wrote:

Not only is Osama a liar but he slanders the NIV committe by claiming that their version of the bible proves that God's word is corrupted!!

My response:

How am I being a liar when I quote things like the following that they themselves wrote based on historical evidence about the books and gospels of the Bible?

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship,...."

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark......"

"Although the author does not name himself....."

etc...

It's not me who is being the liar here Quennel.  It's you who lacks a great deal of manners by giving direct insults, and who also lacks the ability to see the clear contradiction between the NIV Bible's committee's comments about the entire Bible being the perfect Word of GOD Almighty, and the historical evidence that they showed that clearly refutes this very statement.

He wrote:

The NIV committe continues by saying:

Again we see that the NIV takes the bible as God's revelation, despite the evil and satanic slander of Osama Abdallah. He is such a loser who has to resort to outright lies to prove his point to desperate Muslims.

My response:

Again, how am I being a "loser" when I quote things like the following that the NIV Bible committee themselves wrote based on historical evidence about the books and gospels of the Bible?

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship,...."

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark......"

"Although the author does not name himself....."

etc...

Again, it's not me who is being the loser here Quennel.  It's you who lacks a great deal of manners by giving direct insults, and who also lacks the ability to see the clear contradiction between the NIV Bible's committee's comments about the entire Bible being the perfect Word of GOD Almighty, and the historical evidence that they showed that clearly refutes this very statement.

He wrote:

Now lets look at the NIV preface which is present in all their bibles, here are some excerpts which throughly refute Osama Abdallah:

Since Osama believes that the original name of God is Allah, and he appeals to the NIV to prove his points on bible corruption, lets let the NIV answer his bogus claims:

See!! LORD, not Allah. Now lets let NIV conclude with this:

That sums it all. Osama's lie about the NIV claiming that the Bible is corrupt is a utterly false and has nothing to stand on other than his usual misquotes. We presented this information to Osama over and over and he has avoided it everytime, not even given a response as to how can the bible be corrupt according to the NIV, when they claim in the preface that it is the wholly inspired word of God. In order to fool his reader, Osama must constantly use the fallacy of exclusion by quoting parts here and there and eliminating other important material.

My response:

Anyone who visits my The original name for GOD Almighty in Aramaic and Hebrew was indeed "Allah", would immediately see that I used original Hebrew and Aramaic sources to prove my claim.  I didn't rely heavily on the NIV Bible to prove this as Quennel falsely and irresponsibly claims.

He wrote:

Exposing Osama's intentional slander

In this section Osama begins his assault on the New Testament.

OSAMA'S FALLACY: IF THE BOOK WASN'T WRITTEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR ONLY IT'S NOT GOD'S WORD.

My response:

Osama's fallacy?  Quennel, what's wrong with this simple theory that if the book/gospel was not written by an original disciple of Jesus, then the book can not be regarded as the perfect and incorruptible Holy Word of GOD Almighty?  Even the worst of the foolish can understand this simple theory!  I feel sorry for you and your lack of manners Quennel.  All you do is give insults and make yourself look like a comical clown.

He wrote:

If you notice throughout his paper, Osama has established a logically flawed argument due to the fact that he believes that if the author doesn't give his name or if it isn't written by the author it isn't the word of God. However Osama has nothing to base this conclusion on since he is using his opinion as a final standard to build his argument. Therefore since he has not shown any Biblical reference to prove his point, his whole argument is based on "MY OWN OPINION".

My response:

I don't build my arguments by saying "my own opinion".  I also did not establish flawed arguments when I present quotes such as the following about the books and gospels:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship,...."

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark......"

"Although the author does not name himself....."

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself....."

"In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John....."

etc...

Any honest person would clearly see the Truth in my argument Quennel.  Your deceptions will only work on the fools and the blinds in spirit such as yourself, but they will utterly fail with the sincere and real Truth seekers.

He wrote:

We have asked Osama over and over to show us where it is a explict rule that all the authors of the names of the book should write it. He has yet to produce this proof. He knows the difficulty of his position therefore he must ignore our challenge and then proceed with his usual slander.

My response:

Quennel, if it wasn't for the sake of my readers, I would not have taken the time to respond to your nonsensical arguments and foolish comments.  The quotes that I presented above would clearly trigger serious concerns and doubts to any serious Truth seeker!  How can any real GOD-fearing, GOD-respecting and GOD-glorifying person take the nonsense that exist in your Bible as 100% perfect Words of GOD Almighty?

He wrote:

Osama attempts to interpolates his idea after posting part of the quote of the NIV. He then makes a unprovable accusation about the New testament not even being documented until 150 years later.

My response:

I have added more proofs that show the corruption of the gospel of Mark.  Here is what my latest notes say:

Note:  Pay attention to the bolded parts to see even more irrefutable proofs FROM THE NIV BIBLE'S COMMENTARY ITSELF about man's alteration and corruption of this gospel.

The Gospel of Mark:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.  (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here.  First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel".  Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it.  The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.  

Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites.  But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the Bible remains. 

We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful.  The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc...  It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man.  Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty. 

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation.  And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't!  Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.

Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".

Quennel, if this is not sufficient enough for you to prove that the whole gospel of Mark is doubtful and not perfect (to say the least), then you obviously have no intentions to learn the Truth.

He wrote:

Since he claims that the NIV proves this lets see what the NIV's Commentary on Mark says about these matters.

According to the NIV, the unanimous testimony to the authorship of this book was based on very important evidence from trusted traditions.

My response:

How can this claim be accurate when they, the NIV committee, themselves wrote the following:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.  (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

How can "Mark ACCURATELY PRESERVED this material" when there is an obvious forgery inserted in his gospel?!

He wrote:

Osama leaves this quotation out of his paper to give his reader the impression that the NIV agrees that Mark was corrupted. The NIV says that Mark preserved the material accurately, not corruptedly and hence the reason why Mark wouldn't write his name down as the author, but yet this gospel is attributed to him, is because of the fact that it comes from the preaching of Peter.

My response:

Osama left nothing out to decieve the reader.  All Osama did was produce a simple proof that this gospel is a total joke.  You can go around my arguments all you want by writing long and boring articles, but the fact still remains:  Serious forgeries and man's alterations were inserted into this gospel, and neither you or the NIV committee can deny that.  In other words Quennel, your Bible contains garbage.  Thanks to the NIV Bible committee for helping me prove this point.

He wrote:

Anybody who is able to view the entire quote will easily see that Mark was a scribe who documented the preaching of Peter muc like Muhammad's follwers did with the Quran. Documentation 150-300 years? NIV debunks this:

Osama has just ignored this part dealing with Mark. The NIV Living Insights Bible dates Mark's Gospel to 50 a.d.!!! Far from being 150-300 years after the events! The NIV Study Bible helps concur with this:

Osama is deriving his information about the Gospel's authorship from outdated sources from the late 1800's. Notice that the NIV says no such thing as he claim. Also look at his defense, "what ever Christian you talk too"? So he is basing his whole information on hearsay!! This is not only hilarious but is the fallacy of appealing to dubious and unknown authority. We wonder what Christian did he ask this question? A Muslim Christian? Hilarious!!!

My response:

Even if we were to take your argument that the book of Mark, the first gospel in the NT, was written around 50 to 60 A.D., then this still a too much time of long delay to preserve the Truth!  50 to 60 years is more than 1/2 century.  That's a lot of time!  You need to know that the Bible was first communicated by words of mouth.   Man's alterations and opinions and innovations had littered the Bible:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake4.htm

Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?

Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let us ask the Christian scholars themselves:

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors"

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these."

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one of the Church's foremost scholars of the Bible was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117

After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:

"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference"

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."

Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.

He wrote:

Osama again is interpolating the NIV commentary verse by claiming that "John Mark was the Sole author of this Gospel" Then he rambles on about how Christian cults use posionous snakes in their worship. He is so desperate to prove his idea of Bible corruption until he has to resort to using christian cults which he sees on the X-Files to debunk Christianity!! Maybe we should relieve his folly and tell him that serpents in the Bible doesn't always refer to literal snakes, but devils also.

My response:

Quennel Gale intentionally did not paste the following paragraphs:

"If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation.  And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't!  Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy."

Care to respond to these two paragprahs Quennel?

In regards to serpents, only a person full of deceptions such as yourself would try to twist the word's meaning to push his lie.  Serpents mean snakes.  Your Bible issues that challenge and it utterly failed and is still failing to meet it.

Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".

He wrote:

Again, more interpolation by Osama. He claims that Mark's ending proves that the Gospel wasn't written by its original authors. However that isn't what his quote says at all. It says

The NIV calls the writing Mark's Gospel!! It said it probably ended here, not that it is proven that it ended at 16:8. Osama is guilty of trying to make the NIV commentary apply to all the Gospels when it gives only a probability that Mark's Gospel ended. However, historical textual evidence illustrates that Mark’s Gospel is two-fold in ending with both an abridged and unabridged versions. Read:

History has shown that Mark has both a short as well as an unabrigdged ending. Most authorities have Mark 16:9-20. It is only "SOME" who mark it as doubtful. Most means more than Some. That is whay the NIV said that the ending:

They were aware that most MSS have this verse and it would be incorrect to claim that this verse was a later insertion! Osama's whole evidence was based on probable evidence. If he wanted to prove that Mark 16:9-20 was clearly a later addition, surely he could've furnished a NIV quote that explicitly says "THIS GOSPEL DEFINITELY ENDED AT VERSE 8 AND THE REST IS A LATER INSERTION". However his quote says nothing about this issue, aince it speaks of it only being probable. Why? Because it is historically known that there are two endings to Mark amongst the extant MSS, a long and short one. Mark is known as the Abridged Gospel, and the shorter ending is an abridgement of this abridged Gospel as we will see just a little later. Furthermore, the doctrines taught in these disputed passages are established in other undisputed passages of the Gospels. But let's see what the NIV says about Mark before dealing with Mark 16:9:

Hence, even before we reach the 16th chapter the NIV emphatically affirms that Jesus died and bore our sins, demonstrating that the NIV translators believe in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authenticity of the Bible. We have just cited evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is found in most of thee MSS and exposed Osama's evidence as doubtful since it is based only on probability and not on hard core evidence. So we now turn to a range of scripture references that Scholars have shown to be related to Mark 16:9-20. These references from undisputed passages establish the teaching of Mark's longer ending:

There are tons of references that demonstrate the fact of Mark's Gospel being based on the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ as shown in the other undisputed passages of the canonical Gospels. Notice that Osama didn't bother to even look at any scripture cross references.

My response:

The different "Canons" of the Bible!

Different and conflicting variations of "gospels" and "books" that are disagreed upon by the Churches today.

Again Quennel, the quote from the NIV Bible reads as follows:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.  (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

Tell me Quennel, why was Mark 16:9-20 absent from "important early manuscripts"?  Wasn't the whole gospel preserved as a whole by John Mark?   Obviously not!  In fact, the documentation of this gospel did not happen till 1/2 century later.  It is obvious and beyond any doubt that man's alteration, innovations and corruption had entered this gospel.  Otherwise, we would not have missing parts of it from "important early manuscripts".

From www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_false_prophecies.htm

False and failed Prophecies about the Hour put in the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament:

The sections of this article are:

1-  Jesus' false prophecies in Mark 13.
2-  The Jesus of Islam is not a liar.
3-  Conclusion. My advise to the reader.

Jesus' false prophecies in Mark 13:

In the Bible, we see Jesus boldly promising for some serious and major Prophecies about the Hour to pass before the generation of his disciples dies.  The Prophecies never got fulfilled!  Let us look at chapter Mark 13 in the NIV Bible:

Mark 13

Signs of the End of the Age

1  As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"
2  "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3  As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,
4  "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"
5  Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
6  Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.
7  When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
8  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9  "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.
10  And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
11  Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12  "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
13  All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14  "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' [1] standing where it [2] does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
15  Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out.
16  Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.
17  How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
18  Pray that this will not take place in winter,
19  because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again.
20  If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
21  At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ [3] !' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22  For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.
23  So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24  "But in those days, following that distress,
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25  the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' [4]
26  "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27  And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28"  Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
29  Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.
30  I tell you the truth, this generation [5] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Day and Hour Unknown

32  "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
33  Be on guard! Be alert [6] ! You do not know when that time will come.
34  It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35  "Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back--whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn.
36  If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.
37  What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!' "

Foot Notes:
1. 13:14 Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11
2. 13:14 Or he; also in verse 29
3. 13:21 Or Messiah
4. 13:25 Isaiah 13:10; 34:4
5. 13:30 Or race
6. 13:33 Some manuscripts alert and pray

Few points to notice:

1-  In Mark 13:4, Jesus began speaking about the Signs of the Hour.  His disciples got anxious and wanted to know when the Hour would come.

2-  Jesus in Mark 13:5-27 began speaking about the false deceivers and false prophets and other signs.

3-  Jesus in Mark 13:30 boldly says: "I tell you the truth, this generation [5] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."  Jesus' disciples have died, and it's been now more than 2000 years after Jesus, and still the Hour has not come yet.

4-  Jesus in Mark 13:32-33 clearly stated that no one except for GOD Almighty knows when the Hour would come.  But if you look closely at his words and the grammar, you would see that even though Jesus never gave an exact date to the Hour, he did mean to say that it will come soon -- while his disciples were still alive!  This point is clearly proved in Mark 13:30, where Jesus promised that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", and in Mark 13:33, where Jesus warned his disciples to be on a constant lookout for the Hour, since it could happen at any moment before their generation dies or passes.

He wrote:

Really Osama? Lets see what the NIV says concerning whether Mark is the Word of God:

According to the NIV Study bible, Mark gave the people in Rome "THE LIFE OF JESUS", whom the NIV calls "OUR LORD"!! If Mark was corrupted why would they say this? They would say that it wasn't the life of Jesus, nor woudl they call Jesus THEIR LORD if they didn't believe in the authenticity and inspiration of Bible!! Here is more information:

The NIV says exactly the opposite of what Osama is trying to convey to his reader!!! See it for yourself; Mark, according the NIV was not only inspired, but he was under the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST! So Much for Osama proving that the Gospel of Mark isn't the word of God according to the NIV!

Look at the quote closely, it says EVIDENCE IN AND OUTSIDE THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF LED TO THE CONCLUSION OF LUKE'S AUTHORSHIP. Osama then makes a weak argument saying that this was just a mere conclusion. He then asks if this isn't just a man-made Satanic book. Maybe he forgot to see that the EVIDENCE showed that it wasn't a man made book. As for his idea about the book not being inspired by God Almighty I challenge him to show us one reference where it says that God personally wrote the Quran. All he has is Muhammad’s claim that God spoke to him. Is this evidence Osama? Let’s expose him for misquoting the NIV again:

My response:

Quennel, you are a total joke!  The testimonies in Muratorian Canon are as good as your personal testimony since they came in 170 A.D.; 150 years after Jesus -- a century and a half after Jesus!  Need we say more?  To you yes, but to the reader, no.   I think the reader understands well what I am talking about.

He wrote:

Notice that Osama has argued elsewhere that the Bible doesn't have extra biblical evidence to support it but yet when this evidence is shown, including evidence from within the text itself, Osama has to resort to a sudden case of forgetfulness along with misquotes to prove his case. This shows us that his stance from the NIV is so weak that it is simply pathetic. Here we furnish as evidence the comments of Sir William Ramsey. Ramsey, considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists, believed that the New Testament (particularly the books of Luke and Acts) were second-century forgeries. He spent thirty years digging in Asia Minor in order to produce evidence proving that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Holy Bible is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once believed to be a hoax. Dr. Ramsey stated:

Ramsey further said:

Osama shouldn't have a problem with Mr. Ramsey since he used him as a reference in his "History of Man's Corruption of the Bible". Again we see that he is only good at misquoting authors, making them say the exact opposite of what they really claim.

My response:

Again, as I proved above, the Bible was first communicated orally.  It wasn't documented until many many years after Jesus!  What you have today from manuscripts were never claimed by any person.  All you have are mere conclusions that books and gospels were written by certain disciples.  But you have no solid proof to stand on what so ever!  In fact, the missing parts of manuscripts as in the case of Mark 16:9-20 clearly prove that these manuscripts were altered and corrupted by men.  Otherwise, they should've been perfectly preserved with authorship claimed for each one of them.

He wrote:

Again Osama misquotes the NIV since this is what it actually says:

How explicit can you get? Here are more quotes from the NIV:

We wonder what was Osama's excuse for eliminating the rest of this information on his site? Again where does the NIV explicitly say that this book wasn't God's word and that it is corrupted? Osama has yet to provide us with any detailed proof.

Osama seems confused since he thinks that Luke writing for Theophilus somehow entails a compromise on the part of Luke. Luke was writing with the purpose and intention of convincing Theophilus of the truth of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Osama conveniently stops in the middle of a sentence, as seen in his citation of Luke 1:3. Now let us read this in context:

On his page about Bible corruption, OSAMA MAKES A SLIP AND ADMITS THAT LUKE WAS THE AUTHOR!! READ HIS COMMENTS:

Notice that here he claims that the reason why Luke's Gospel isn't inspired is BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY LUKE!!! Yet, in this article he claims that he doesn't even know who the real author is!! Does Osama suffer from amnesia or epilepsy? Even the NIV states clearly that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, basing their view on careful scholarly investigation of the evidences:

Osama also argues from silence when he claims that Luke never claimed that he was inspired. Luke never DENIED he was inspired either, sow hat does this prove? Absolutely nothing. When we look at how the first Christians viewed Luke’s Gospel, we discover that they both KNEW and AFFIRMED that it was an inspired revelation from God:

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 AND LUKE 10:7:

Here, Paul calls Luke’s Gospel Scripture and places it on the same level of Moses’ writings! Additional evidence that Paul is citing Luke's Gospel can be seen from a comparison of the Greek:

So much for Osama’s denial of Luke’s inspiration! Osama continues:

Since Osama agrees that the NIV focuses on historical information, we will turn to it for the dating of this Gospel, as opposed to basing our arguments on what some hypothetical Christian may say. (It is obvious that Osama is making things up again since he doesn’t even bother to name who these Christians are, which shows that he has never talked to them). Here is what the NIV commentary says:

It is clear that Osama simply picks and chooses what he likes from the NIV since he completely ignores what the NIV says about the dating of these gospels. No NIV quote claims that the gospels date some 150-300 years after Christ. Osama knows that the NIV statements do not support his case, and simply decides to invent claims to look good to his readers. Osama continues:

Osama thinks that he can debunk the Bible because there were persons named Theophilus that came some 200-400 years after Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions a second century Bishop named Theophilus:

The other Theophilus was the Patriarch of Alexandria in 385-412 AD. (source- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm)

You can even go here and see the entries for both these Theophiluses- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/t.htm

Osama erroneously seeks to link the Theophilus of Luke’s Gospel with these two Christian figures of the second and fourth centuries solely because they have the same name! What Osama failed to tell his readers is that Theophilus is a common Greek name, just like Steve is a common name in English. My elementary school is named Theophilus. Osama obviously knows nothing about Christian history!

My response:

Jesus not only promised that the hour would come before the generation he was living among would pass in the book of Mark, but he also made the same promise in the book of Luke:

"Then he said to them all:  "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.  What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?  If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.   I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."  (From the NIV Bible, Luke 9:23-27)"

Similar to Mark 13:1-37 as shown above, Jesus in Luke 9:23-27 yet makes another promise that the hour would come before the generation he was living among would pass.  It is now 2,000 years after Jesus and the generation he was living among is all dead, and yet, the Hour have not come yet!  Need we say more about this corrupted gospel that no one on this earth know who originally wrote it?

He wrote:

It should be noted that Osama originally sought to link Luke’s Theophilus with the fourth century Patriarch. After being informed of this mistake, Osama later changed his information and tried to link Luke’s Theophilus with the Theophilus of 177 A.D. This shows just how deceitful Osama truly is.

My response:

Quennel, I don't remember that.  You either mistaked me with someone else, or you are a flat out liar!

He wrote:

Instead of simply acknowledging his mistake, he sought all the more harder to find any evidence which he thought would place Luke’s Gospel in the second century. However his own words contradict the fact that Theophilus of AD. 177 was the one Luke was writing to. Read what he says:

Osama claimed that Luke was writing to a president or leader named Theophilus, contradicting his assertion above that the Theophilus mentioned in the third Gospel is actually a second century Bishop!!! So who is Theophilus really? A leader in the first century, a second century Bishop or a fourth century Patriarch?

My response:

I wasn't contradicting myself.  The article was using references from the book of Luke without putting emphasis on it's historical corruption in that specific section.   Also, www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm was not written by me personally.

He wrote:

Again your quote DOESN'T SAY THAT HEBREWS IS CORRUPTED. Until you show me that this quote does then I care less about how you interpret it.

My response:

My quote does not say the book is corrupted, but it does prove that it was written by a mysterious author, hence it was corrupted by man's innovation and alteration.  Even the worst of the foolish would understand this.  I don't know why it is too difficult for your messed up brain to comprehend this?!  Are you on drugs Quennel?

He wrote:

This only exposes your silly neophyte knowledge of Christian history.

My response:

With all due respect to the reader, but the only silly thing here is you Quennel for having such a ridiculous stupidity!

He wrote:

We quote the NIV regarding the authorship of Hebrews in order to demonstrate that Osama's assertions that this translation claims that the Bible is corrupt is an outright lie:

My response:

Before I let you continue with your quotes, I just want to make it clear to the reader that you are very ridiculous and silly for calling me a "liar".  Check my quotes for yourself, and you'll see that whatever I quoted is correct.  So in other words, it is not right for you to call me a "liar", when all I am doing is exposing the trash inside your corrupted Bible.

He wrote:

Osama basically tries to use the NIV’s statement that they wished the author had written his name as propaganda against the Holy Scriptures!

My response:

Your very first quote "Nobody really knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews....." clearly and irrifutably proves my point!

He wrote:

Note the following from the NIV Study Bible:

According to the NIV, Christ is God's Final revelation to humankind. This eliminates any need for the Quran. Since Osama is quoting the NIV with authority, he must accept the fact that according to this source Osama believes in a false book!!

My response:

This eliminates the Noble Quran?  Says who Quennel?  Your NIV committee clowns?  Like I said earlier in my response, their opinions are irrelevant, but the historical facts they presented (which proved your Bible to be extremely doubtful) are relevant, because they are based on clear historical facts.

For the Miracles and Prophecies that were fulfilled in the Noble Quran, please visit: Science, Miracles and Prophecies in the Noble Quran and Islam.

He wrote:

Read what the NIV Study Bible says in the footnotes dealing with Christ:

The NIV’s explicit testimony to the Deity of Christ exposes Islam as a fraud, as well as exposing Osama's misapplication of the NIV notes. To drive it home read what the NIV says about Hebrews 1:5-14:

Not only does the NIV state that this book is inspired by God and is protected by the Almighty himself through the ages, it affirm that Jesus is both God and is distinguished from God the Father!! Osama claims that Hebrews is doubtful even though his best piece of evidence, the NIV, says just the opposite!!!

My response:

Jesus was never worshiped by anyone.  He certainly was never worshiped by the angels.  This is an intentional English mistranslation that was exposed at this article:

Do People and Angels bowing down to Jesus in Worship really prove that he is the Creator of the Universe?  See how the word "Worship" used for Jesus doesn't even exist in the original Greek Bibles.  The Trinitarian English translations are nothing but hoaxes and deceptions.  The article responds to Matthew 15:9 and other English mistranslated verses in the Bible.

He wrote:

When I posed this same argument against Osama, he responded:

If it is irrelevant, then why does the Quran even bother to mention it?

My response:

The Noble Quran mentions it because it is a historical event that took place.  The Noble Quran was gave testimony to this event's occurance.  It's not the same as your corrupted book of Hebrews, because you have yet to prove to us that it was sent from GOD Almighty.

He wrote:

As for the Quran, Islamic history proves that it wasn't documented on the spot. I can show you tons of references to prove my point if you want. And as for educated Muslims, many were killed in the battlefields that resulted in a loss of great portions of the Quran. Want references I can post that too.

My response:

If you had the references you would've posted them.  Anyway, for the details about the Noble Quran preservation, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm

He wrote:

So basically, we are to believe that the Quran was copied down because you said it was? Again no proof. Osama continues by saying:

The materials from which the Quran was compiled were scattered everywhere. It wasn't arranged in any order nor put into one book until after Muhammad died. Basically it was left to men's judgment to decide what went in and what went out. There were sharp disagreements as to what was supposed to be included.

My response:

Nonsense.  Again, for the details about the Noble Quran preservation, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm

He wrote:

Yet, Muslims like to judge the Bible harshly based on a criteria that can so easily be used against the Quran with even greater force and weight.

My response:

As I clearly showed above, and even more clearly showed at: www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm, most of the Bible is a total joke!

He wrote:

Notice that Osama doesn't provide any credible source to back up his claim. Do Muslims really expect us to simply accept their claims for the Quran without providing any evidence for us to examine, all the while demanding that we provide proofs galore for Christianity? I don’t think so.

My response:

Again, nonsense.  For the details about the Noble Quran preservation, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm

He wrote:

Nonsense. No Hadiths exist to prove this assertion, and ignorant peasants don’t qualify as scholars.

My response:

Quennel, the Hadiths are made up of 6 huge volumes.  It is believed that there are around 250,000 narrations about the Prophet peace be upon him and his life and the events that took place with him and the Noble Quran's compilation.  You summing it all up into a ridiculous statement such as "No Hadiths exist to prove this assertion" clearly proves that you are a joker who is not out there to seek the Truth, but rather to promote his polytheist pagan trinity nonsense.

He wrote:

Memorization was common in Near Eastern cultures but none of this makes them scholars. Muhammad may have had a good memory (even though this is doubtful, see http://answering-islam.org/Green/forgot.htm), yet he was still basically ignorant and illiterate.

Again Osama furnishes nothing more than vain comments. When he finally ran out of answers he tried to refer me to his site, which we are attempting to systematically debunk, as this article exposing Osama’s misquotations of the NIV hopefully shows.

My response:

To learn more about our Prophet peace be upon him, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/muhammad.htm.   Your article had so far debunked nothing Quennel.  All you did was falsely call me a liar who misquotes the NIV Bible, when in reality you know well that I did not misquote it, but rather exposed with simple statements and logic the nonsense and corruption that exists in most of the Bible.  This had obviously frustrated you as it is apparent to the reader with your low-life cheap name calling, rude comments, and lack of manners.

He wrote:

Osama seeks to undermine the NIV’s claim that the Apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel solely because John didn’t sign it! Do note what the NIV says regarding the omission of John’s name:

The NIV says that IT IS NATURAL FOR JOHN TO NOT MENTION HIS NAME IF HE DID WRITE THE GOSPEL!! Again, note what the NIV says:

Osama also overlooked the very first sentence in his own quote which explicitly says:

The evidence is as explicit as one can find verifying the authorship of the apostle John!! Osama's evidence of bible corruption is nothing more than the usual misquotation and intentional misrepresentation found among common Islamic propaganda against the bible. Both the NIV Study and Living Insights Bible mention the apostle John as the author of the beloved fourth gospel. We find it very unusual for Osama Abdallah to try and disprove the authenticity of the Bible for the sake of bringing people to Islam. The Quran and the Muslim traditions clearly affirm the purity and preservation of the Holy Bible.

Finally, note what the first Muslim biographer said regarding the authorship of the fourth Gospel:

The preceding Gospel citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. Please notice that Ishaq doesn’t say that this particular Gospel is inauthentic or corrupt. Apparently, the first Muslims weren’t as sharp as Osama since they had no problem admitting that John authored the fourth Gospel, even though he never signed his name!

My response:

Quennel, I'll let your very own Christian theologians respond to you.  The following was taken from The Gospel of John, Gospel or gossip?, which shows proof about early Christians rejecting the so-called Gospel of John.  They believed it was all man-made:

The questionable doctrine of incarnation, which appears in the beginning of the gospel of John as follows:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." (1:1)

It further States:

"And word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory as of the only son from the Father."

The above words are and/or have been attributed to John. Because John was disciple, who makes it appear that the founder of this doctrine was not Paul, but John.

This claim might have been sound if the gospel of John was at least as similar and coherent as the first three gospels. However, gospel of John is questioned and doubted by the Christians themselves. A large number 2nd century Christians have denied that John wrote the gospel. In current times, the authenticity of gospel has been a center of debate and dispute.

Irenaeus, Orogen, Clement, and Eusebius were the first made claims that this gospel was the work of John, the disciple. Nevertheless, at that time [254 AD], a group of Christians refused to accept that John wrote the gospel. According to Encyclopedia Britannica the position of this group is as follows:

"A positive testimony for the critical conclusion is derived from the existence of a group of Asia Minor Christians who about 165 rejected the gospel as not by John but by Cerinthus. The attribution is doubtless mistaken; but could Christians who were sufficiently numerous to deserve a long discussion by St. Epiphanius in 374-377, and who upheld the Synoptic, stouts opposed the Gnostics and Montanists, and had escaped every special designation till the Bishop nick-named them the "Alogi" (irrational rejecters of the Logos-Gospel), dare in such a time and country, to hold such views had the apostolic origin been incontestable."

Then there is internal evidence that shows that this gospel was not written by disciple John. However, the author of gospel of John was certainly a Jewish theologian who was very well familiar with Jewish thoughts and ideas. As it appears from the Acts 4:13, the disciple John son of Zebedee was uneducated. The gospel further reveals that its author was deeply learned and belonged to a noble family. Contrary to that John [disciple] son of Zebedee has a lower status from social point of view. Beside this, contents and style of gospel of John radically differs from other three gospels.

The first person to ascribe the fourth gospel as the work of John was "Irenaeus" who, according to Christian scholars is not reliable and not an expert in the filed of critical analysis. For similar reasons, a large group of Christian scholars in recent times view this gospel as a fabrication and opined that it should be included among the other books in Bible.

Those Christian scholars, who regard the gospel as correct and who wish to save it from the allegation of fabrication, are virtually unanimous that the author of fourth gospel was not the John [son of Zebedee] but the John the Elder. James Mackinon writes:

" It is likely enough that "Irenaeus, whose accuracy and critical discernment are not outstanding has confused him with another John [John the Elder] mentioned by Papias of Hierapolis in Asia, in the second quarter of second century, as well as with the Prophet John of the Book of Revelation."

A well-known Christian scholar from Pakistan [Barakatullah] writes:

"We have reached the conclusion that the narration of that gospel of John was written by John the son of Zebedee is incorrect."

Barakatullah, furthers by saying that:

"The truth is that the theologians are not willing to accept without debate that the fourth gospel was written by John son of Zebedee. And generally, theories to the contrary are seen."

Barakatullah has endeavored in great details in his book to substantiate his claim that the author of the fourth gospel was not John the son of Zebedee. Why did Barakatullah, a Christian scholar believe to establish this fact? He explains in the following words:

"Those theologians who believe that the fourth gospel was written by John son of Zebedee- they do not generally accept the historical significance of this gospel. Their theory is that the fourth gospel is free of historical events, and that its contents belong to author who puts it in the mouth of the word of God."

In fact attribution of the fourth gospel as the work of John son of Zebedee, the disciple, places its authenticity in serious jeopardy, the reverend has attempted to show that it was written by John the Elder. His research indicates that John the Elder was also a student of Jesus, but he was not counted among disciples. Since John the Elder was a young person and was honored by Jesus in his last days to include John the Elder in his company. John the Elder was a cultured and learned in the Old Testament. He belonged to a noble family that he has expressed in his gospel. Many Christians generally accept this conclusion today. That has resulted in rejecting John son of Zebedee, the disciple as the author of fourth gospel.

The above conclusion is without foundation. Apart from protecting the originality of the gospel of John, one cannot see any other reason for it. The question yet to be answered that if John the Elder, beside the twelve disciples was another student of Jesus. Why has he not mentioned by Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels? The fourth gospel indicates that its author was in very close contact with Jesus; also he was loved deeply by Jesus as well. The author of fourth gospel has used the expression in many places "the disciple whom Jesus loved." At the end, the author says that the meaning of that expression is the author of the fourth gospel himself.

[See e.g. " One of his disciple, whom Jesus loved was lying close to the breast of Jesus 13:23]. And "So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it?" 13:25]

We don't see this closeness by/for twelve disciples, but this disciple was so loved that he was allowed to be that close and eat. So, if Jesus was so close to him [author], then the author was not included as thirteenth disciple? How is it rationally acceptable that Judas Iscariot who was regarded as thief (John 12:6) and who betrayed Jesus and caused his master [Jesus] to be arrested [Luke 22:3], be included among the twelve disciples, and the student of Jesus [the author of fourth gospel], who ate close to [laying] the breast of Jesus?

Which none other disciple did], and who was most concerned at Jesus ascension to heaven by reason of separation from him is/was not included among disciples of Jesus?

Further, why Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels, which according to Christians contains a complete description and details of Jesus' life, even mentioning ordinary persons who were connected with Jesus like Mary Magdalene, Martha in reference of Jesus' donkey, completely fail to make any reference to this alleged student of Jesus?

IF there was a disciple named John the Elder, beside from John son of Zebedee, the disciple, then why the authors of all four gospels failed to explain the distinction between two Johns to avoid confusion? Among the twelve disciples we know that there were TWO [James] (1) James son of Zebedee (2) James son of Alphaeus. Similarly, there were TWO persons with the name of Judas (1) Judas son of James (2) Judas Iscariot. The authors of four gospels have distinguished between them by mentioning them separately in order to avoid confusion. [See e.g. Matthew 10:6, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13] So, if there were two persons among the disciples of Jesus by the name of John, then why the authors of gospels did not dispel the confusion as the authors of four gospels did in the cases of James and Judas?


Further, if there was a disciple of Jesus by the name of John the Elder, then where did he go after the ascension of Jesus? The efforts and activities of disciples of Jesus after his departure are described in detail in the book of Acts. But there is no mention of any John the Elder. It cannot be assumed or said that he [John the Elder] died immediately after the ascension of Jesus. Because the gospel of John was written very much after Jesus. It is stated therein that " and this is famous amongst the disciples-author of fourth gospel will live till the day of judgment (21:23). Therefore, all Christian theologians, who regard John the Elder as separate from the John the son of Zebedee, the disciple are of the view that John the Elder remained alive for a considerable period after Jesus to the extent that Polycrap became his student. The evidence is indisputable that John the Elder was not a disciple of Jesus. The verse at the end of gospel of John states that:


" This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things, and we know that this testimony is true (21:24)."

Let us keep this fact in mind that the majority of Christian scholars believes that above verse is a later insertion and is not by the author of gospel of John. The well known commentator of the Bible Westcott, who is very cautious and careful to criticize the Bible, says in this regards [quoted by Streeter, p 430]:

" The two verses appear to be separate notes attached to the gospel before its publication. The form of verse 24 contrasted with that of XIX 35 shows conclusively that it is not the witness of the evangelist. The words were probably added by Epaesian Elders, to whom the preceding narrative had been given both orally and in writing."

This view is supported by the well-known writer of modern times Bishop Gore, and this is the reason why these two verses are not found in the codex sineticus. Therefore, one cannot say that the author of these verses was a disciple of Jesus.

It establishes beyond any doubt that the author of the fourth gospel is neither John son of Zebedee, the disciple nor John the Elder or any other disciple of Jesus. In view of the above facts the author of fourth gospel was a person who lived very much later than the disciples of Jesus and who acquired his knowledge under Paul and his students. According to "Westcott", in order to ascribe gospel of John, son of Zebedee, the disciple, certain sentences were added which includes the personal experience of the writer, with a view to refuting the arguments of some Gnostic sects of that times who rejected the so-called divinity of Jesus. It is undisputed in the academic world that alterations in Bible were common and continue in order to debate opposing sects of the time. Professor Streeter, the well-known Christian scholar of modern time writes in his book [The Four Gospels p 4] in the clearest terms possible and I quote:

" Then, in the fourth gospel we find an addition to the text, admittedly nor by the original author which makes a definite statement as to authorship, is it not more probable that it was made at some later date perhaps also in some other locality, and was intended to assert a view as to the authorship of the book from which certain person at that time or place dissented? And that such dissent did exist in the second century we shall see shortly. That being so, the addition of the words "this is the disciple which.wrote these things" is to be interpreted as an attempt to settle a debated question, and is, therefore, additional evidence of the existence of doubts in regard to the authorship of the Gospel."

Hence, it is not without wonder, that under such circumstances the fourth gospel and the letters of John were written by a student of Paul, and people later made certain alterations to establish that the author of fourth gospel has met personally with Jesus and has been in his company, which by the way is not true.

Keeping the general approach on these times in mind, this conclusion appears to be correct. In Christian view the fourth gospel may have been written by John the Elder, but he was not a disciple of Jesus. By adopting the views of professor Streeter, the author of fourth gospel was John the Elder, but that: [Streeter "The Four Gospels p 443]


"John the Elder is described by Papias as disciple of the Lord" by Polycrap as one "who has seen the Lord." We need not suppose that he had done much more when 'see' Him, brought perhaps as a boy of twelve years old to Jerusalem by his father on pilgrimage to the Passover. And he may have been among the crowd that looked on at the crucifixion, people in those days

were not careful to keep such sights from children. In that case by AD 95 he would have reached the age of seventy-seven. The First Epistle of John was obviously written by a man of advance years, who can pass quite naturally from "brethren" to my little children" in the same paragraph (IJN III 13 and 18). This last phase would hardly have been written by a man under seventy."

There is, then no difficulty in supposing that John the Elder wrote the fourth gospel AD 90-95 at the age of seventy of above.

Conclusion

Christian missionary and evangelists desperately attempt to save the fourth gospel from being declared as created. But if one can avoid fruitless attempts of justification and accept the theory as it is, the following conclusion is inevitable.

1. The author of fourth gospel was NOT John son of Zebedee, the disciple, but John the Elder.

2. John the Elder is NOT among the disciples of Jesus.

3. John the Elder, saw Jesus once at the age of twelve [12], but did NOT get any opportunity of serving Jesus or hearing his teachings.

4. John the Elder saw the Jesus in the last stage of crucifixion.

5. He was NOT a citizen of Jerusalem, but he was a resident of Southern regions of Canaan.

6. After Jesus and until AD 95, there is NO record or any account where he lived? And from whom he acquired knowledge? Whose company he was often in/with? And what relationship he had with the disciples of Jesus?

7. On or about 95 AD, at the age of 70+ he wrote the gospel of John in which he mentions for the first time the doctrine of incarnation.

8. Later, an addition was made at the end of the gospel that indicated that its author was the disciple John the son of Zebedee or some beloved disciple of Jesus.

The conclusions set forth above are hardly a result of Muslims' reasoning, but are rather the views of Christian theologians in order to save the fourth gospel from being declared as created. The above conclusions will lead to undeniable facts cited below.

(a) The doctrine of incarnation cannot be ascribed to Jesus or any of his disciples.

(b) A person who at the age of twelve only saw Jesus but did not acquire any knowledge from him first wrote this doctrine after the ascension of Jesus.

(c) The person who presents this doctrine is unknown, apart from his writing, his condition and situation is unknown.

(d) What type of person he was? What were his beliefs? How did he come up with this doctrine? What was his relationship with the disciples?

(e) This doctrine of incarnation came into being and/or inserted in the Bible around 95 AD when his age was 70 and 28 years had passed since the death of Paul.

(f) Because Paul had died before him, and Paul had clearly expounded the doctrine of incarnation in his letters, which proves that the first person to expound the doctrine of incarnation was not John the Elder, but Paul.

(g) Let us not forget this fact that any statement of Jesus neither supports the doctrine of incarnation, nor was it espoused by any of his disciples.

He wrote:

Osama is apparently blatantly ignorant of what Islamic history and Muhammad think about Paul. Read this from the earliest Islamic accounts:

Muhammad himself said that Jesus was commissioned by God to send the disciples into the world. And yet Paul happens to be one of those who assisted the Apostle Peter in carrying out Jesus’ great commission!! Notice that Ibn Ishaq predates the most credible Hadiths by over 125 years. According to Muhammad, Jesus said that this is a thing his followers must do. Interestingly, other Muslim sources confirm the above statement from Ishaq:

Amazingly, Bukhari, the most authentic Hadith collection in Islam, even quotes one of Paul's letters and attributes the saying to God!:

According to this Hadith, Muhammad purportedly claims that Allah uttered the above words. Compare what Allah is supposed to have revealed to Muhammad with what Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Paul paraphrases the following citation from Isaiah:

Hence, according to the Hadith the one that inspired Paul's saying, which Muhammad alludes to in virtually identical language, is none other than God! Notice that “Allah” has taken Paul's quote and slightly modified it, and both contexts refer to the rewards that God has in store for true believers. Since Osama considers Paul to be a deceiver, we must conclude that Muhammad and his god Allah are also deceivers since they quote Paul!!! Muslims hate this quote since it undermines their thinking about Paul.

My response: