Sunday 20 November 2016

Historical Error: Mary, the mother of Jesus as Miriam, the sister of Moses

The Quran makes a clear historical error when it borrows stories from the Bible (Torah and Gospels). The error we have in spotlight here is that the Quran mentions Mary, the mother of Jesus and Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, as the same person (both names are written as Maryam in Arabic). This is totally absurd since Moses (if at all he existed) lived more than 600-1000 years before Jesus.

The evidence for this is so strong that the Quran repeats this mistake in two different ways.

1) By mistaking Mary, the mother of Jesus as "Sister of Harun (Aaron)" (Quran 19:28).
2) By mistaking Imran (Amram), the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, as the father of Mary (Quran 3:35 - 3:45, 66:12).

Before I describe the evidence, let us consider the possibility that the verse 19:28 is not referring to a biological sister. Is it then a mere coincidence that Aaron actually had a sister with the same name Maryam as per the Torah? Even to the point that she is described in Torah as "Sister of Aaron", exactly as Jesus' mother is referred to in the Quran? Think over it. If the Quran is from God, then we have to accept that God was deliberately misleading humans into believing that the Quran is from a human author who mistakes Mary and Miriam as the same person. Or is God so careless that he didn't realize this and ended up using the word "sister" when he could have used much better wordings or atleast made a clarification?

Let us forgive this and see if there is any other place in the Quran where this confusion between Mary and Miriam is repeated. Yes there is! The Quran verses 3:35 - 3:45 describe that the wife of Imran gave birth to Maryam, who later became the mother of Jesus. Verse 66:12 describes Maryam, the mother of Jesus as the daughter of Imran. There are absolutely no inscriptions or scriptures mentioning Imran as the father of Mary, till the author of Quran came up with this claim in the 7th century. Strange! So, from where did the author pull out the name "Imran" from? The answer is Torah. Exodus 6:20 and 15:20 describe that Amram was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. Amram is arabicised to Imran. This idea that Imran had a daughter "Maryam" made the author of Quran think that this was talking about Maryam, the mother of Jesus.

Here is a verse from the Torah that state that Moses and Aaron had a sister named Miriam where she is described as "sister of Aaron", exactly as Jesus' mother is described in Quran: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15%3A20&version=NKJV

Here is another verse from the Torah that state that Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+26%3A59&version=NKJV

Here are the verses 19:27 - 19:34 from the Quran which show that the author of Quran mistook Mary, the mother of Jesus as the sister of Aaron: http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP019.htm

19:27 - Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! You have come with an amazing thing.
19:28 - O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a wicked man nor was your mother a harlot.
19:29 - Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ?
19:30 - He spoke: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and has appointed me a Prophet,
....
19:34 - Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.

Here are the verses 3:35 - 3:45 and 66:12 which show that the author of Quran further affirms his previous error by mistaking Amram, the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam as the father of Mary: http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP003.htm

3:35 - (Remember) when the wife of 'Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto you that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo!  you, only you, are the Hearer, the Knower!
3:36 - And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave your protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.
....
3:45 - (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP066.htm
66:12 - And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient.

A hadith from Sahih Muslim states that the Christians of Najran questioned Mughira bin Shu'ba, one of Muhammad's men regarding this. Mughira was sent to Najran in 631 AD and Muhammad had delivered verses 19:28, 3:35-3:45 and 66:12 long before. Upon Mughira reaching Najran to recite the Quran, the Christians asserted that Moses was born long before Jesus. Mughira was clueless how to respond to this, went back to Muhammad and informed him what happened. Muhammad seemingly understood his mistake at this point and tried to cover it up by indicating that the verse 19:28 was referring to another Harun (or that the usage "sister of Harun" was a symbolic reference to connect Mary with Harun - this claim is addressed in the last 4 paragraphs). Here is the hadith:

Sahih Muslim 25:5326

https://sunnah.com/muslim/38/13
Mughira b. Shu'ba reported:
When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.

Muhammad obviously did not want to change the Quran and attempts to cover it up - "The people of old age used to name people after the names of Apostles". And Muhammad wanted to tell people that it is a mere coincidence that Jesus' mother Maryam (Mary) had a brother with name Harun, exactly as Moses' sister Maryam (Miriam) had a brother named Harun. Not to mention the amazing coincidence of Mary's father having the same name as Miriam's father, on top of the other coincidence. It is well understandable because he would not want to admit having made a mistake, at all cost!

Is it still possible that Mary's father was actually named Imran and/or that she had a brother named Harun? If you are thinking that way, you need to think why no other book ever mentioned this for more than 600 years since Mary's era until the Quran mentioned it? The obvious answer is that the author of Quran borrowed the names from the Torah while making a fatal error, associating these characters with the wrong Maryam. Infact, multiple Christian traditions including the Gospel of James from the second century state that Mary's father was named Joachim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim

Many Muslim apologists point out Bible verses depicting Jesus as "son of David", Abraham as "brother of Lut" (found in both Quran and Bible), Quranic depiction of Shuaib as the "brother of Midian" etc and state that it was common in semitic languages for such references to be made depicting a symbolic relationship. They claim that it was such a symbolic relationship between Harun and Mary that is depicted in verse 19:28. However, it should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! There is a difference between how the Jews used Type A (Brother of/Sister of usages) and Type B (Son of/Daughter of usages). We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A. Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe. For connecting two individuals who lived in different eras, the Jews used "son of" and "daughter of" phrases - eg: Jesus as "son of David", "son of Abraham", Elizabeth as "of the daughters of Aaron".

And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Jesus being called as "son of Abraham", Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". An overview of these examples strengthen the observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to connect two individuals who lived in different eras. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used; ideally when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

Additionally, the fact that the Quran verse 19:28 compares Mary to her father and mother right after making the usage "sister of Harun" increases the chances that the author was infact referring to her as the biological sister of Harun - the idea being to compare Mary with her own family members - indicating that they were all chaste.

There is no way to reconcile this historical error. This only affirms that the author of Quran was actually borrowing second hand knowledge from scriptures such as the Torah and Gospels.

74 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This should sort out the confusion
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

      Delete
    2. It should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A.Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe.

      And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

      Delete
    3. It is important to realise that my argument is not merely based on Quran 19:28 alone.

      I mentioned a second remarkable evidence for the same error - ie Quran 3:35 - 3:45 describing Imran's wife giving birth to Mary.

      Imran was the father of Moosa, Harun and Maryam... The author of Quran obviously mistook this Maryam as Jesus' mother.

      As for the hadith, it is very important to note ONE THING. That Muhammad gave this explanation ONLY AFTER the information of Moses having lived long before Jesus, being delivered by the Xtians of Najran. So, this hadith tells Muhammad's position after getting the vital information. To know his position before getting this information, you need to read the verses delivered as part of Quran, as they came earlier than the dialogue with Najranis.

      It is also curious to note that Muhammad sent Mughira to Najran to recite the Quran WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE MEANING OF A VERSE!! Ie, he couldnt answer the Najranis.

      One last thing -- when looking at the verse 19:28 itself, it is clear that the author's logic is to compare Mary with her own family members - father, mother and brother. So, it is unlikely that just in the case of brother alone, he was referring to a long dead ancestor.

      Delete
    4. رد مقالتك الطويلة فى حديث واحد فى صحيح مسلم 2135 عن المغيرة بن شعبة قال: لما قدمت نجران سألوني فقالوا: إنكم تقرءون يا أخت هارون ، وموسى قبل عيسى بكذا وكذا فلما قدمت على رسول الله ﷺ سألته عن ذلك فقال: إنهم كانوا يسمون بأنبيائهم والصالحين قبلهم. انتهى ، تخيل مدى جهلك أنت تقول أن القرآن أخطأ بشبهة تافهه رد عليها النبي ﷺ نفسه من 1450 سنة يا لجهلكم يا رجل

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You point out one error in our holy Quran we can point out hundred of errors in your bible and I would say full of errors

      Delete
    3. Dear Sir, one mistake in the Quran invalidates the entire Quran, as mentioned in the Quran chapter 1 itself. Hence, Quran is not the word of any God, and yes, the Bible is also wrong according to that matter.

      Delete
    4. This should sort out the confusion https://seekersguidance.org/answers/islamic-belief/the-fathers-of-sayyidna-musa-and-sayyidatna-maryam/

      Delete
  3. Nice research and good findings...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confusion solved
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

      Delete
    2. It is important to realise that my argument is not merely based on Quran 19:28 alone.

      I mentioned a second remarkable evidence for the same error - ie Quran 3:35 - 3:45 describing Imran's wife giving birth to Mary.

      Imran was the father of Moosa, Harun and Maryam... The author of Quran obviously mistook this Maryam as Jesus' mother.

      As for the hadith, it is very important to note ONE THING. That Muhammad gave this explanation ONLY AFTER the information of Moses having lived long before Jesus, being delivered by the Xtians of Najran. So, this hadith tells Muhammad's position after getting the vital information. To know his position before getting this information, you need to read the verses delivered as part of Quran, as they came earlier than the dialogue with Najranis.

      It is also curious to note that Muhammad sent Mughira to Najran to recite the Quran WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE MEANING OF A VERSE!! Ie, he couldnt answer the Najranis.

      One last thing -- when looking at the verse 19:28 itself, it is clear that the author's logic is to compare Mary with her own family members - father, mother and brother. So, it is unlikely that just in the case of brother alone, he was referring to a long dead ancestor.

      Delete
    3. It should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A.Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe.

      And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

      Delete
  4. It is the tradition of the Jews to call someone in relation to someone else. Calling Mary sister of Aaron doesnt mean they're siblings.. similarly Jesus was called son of David many times in the NT.

    The people of Israel used to call people by adding words such as you "Son of..." or "Brother of...." or "Sister of...." When they called someone "O son of...." it's not literal. They didn't mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. Similarly, son of God does not mean god's biological son.

    This issue was brought to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and he responded to it clearly. Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: "When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun (Aaron)" (i. e. Mary) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 025, Number 5326)"

    Haroun is the name the Jews used to refer to as someone pious and righteous. As are the parents of Mary who are pious and righteous.

    As we clearly see from the Hadith of our beloved Prophet that the false claim made against him about Mary being the biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try !!!!!BUT read this>>>>>". There is no evidence from"old age" that anybody call "sister of Aaron".Talking about people of old age,no one in the Bible is called that way!!We can not see any evidence that they call anybody in Quran "sister of another great pious person such as brother of Aaron", "sister of Moses", and "brother of Moses etc...".No hadith indicating that they ever used "sister of Aaron" in any hadith neither!!!.
      Arabic word "sister" (ukhtun) is used 14 times in the Quran except this case that Mary called Aaron sister and 2 more cases( sister-nation" (7:38), and "sister-sign", (43:48) ) the rest are used as a living blood relatives.With Muhammad to be such a great role model no one ever called "sister" or "brother" after Muhammad's model!!
      conclusion: The custom of calling people "brother or sister" after people of old simply did not exist!!!
      NICE TRY BUT GO AHEAD AND TRY SOMETHING ELSE !!!!!

      Delete
    2. If you are in search of truth then read the following article: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

      Delete
    3. Thank you Mr Jawad for advice. about 40 years ago someone recommended me to read Quran to find the truth.Exactly that happened, I read Quran profoundly for many yers and at the end I left Islam.

      Delete
  5. Here is how an uninformed person on another site responded to this article. Below, I will explain why this person is wrong.

    This is the last time, I will allow you to post uniformed crap.

    You are are extremely arrogant and prejudiced. I will not allow your post in the future.

    You obviously are not aware that In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim" or "brother of Tamim". Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was called a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke 1, 5, as one "of the daughters of Aaron").

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is zero evidence that anyone in any ancient Semitic culture referred to a living person as the "brother" or "sister" of a person long dead. Although we often meet the expression "brother of the sons of X," meaning "member of the X tribe," we never see "brother of X" if X was the ancestor.

      Muhammad's words, "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them ..." does not in fact mean, "They used to name their children after historical characters," but, "They used to compliment their friends by calling them 'brother' or 'sister' of dead saints."

      Muhammad therefore SAID that "sister of Aaron" meant "symbolic descendant of Aaron". But this was simply a quick fabrication by Muhammad when he was cornered with his mistake. He knew that the equally ignorant Mughira would have no way of checking this assertion. It is not true that the Semites ever had any such custom.

      Delete
    2. Further, Mary was not a male-line descendant of Aaron. She may have been related to him in the female line, since Elizabeth was some kind of cousin to her, but it cannot be proved, since the Jews only recorded male-line ancestry. Muhammad himself said that only male-line ancestry should be cited and that it was an insult to one's father to claim ancestors who were only through the female line. (See Ibn Ishaq page 641.)

      Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Most theologians believe that the genealogy in Luke chapter 3 is in fact the genealogy of Mary rather than of Joseph. It is designed to show that Jesus was a biological as well as legal descendant of King David. Aaron, however, was from the tribe of Levi.

      Delete
    3. As for Mughira ibn Shuja, has anyone bothered to research his biography? He is a textbook example of why Islam is bad for people, both Muslims and outsiders.

      Delete
    4. INFORMATIVE JAZAKALLAH

      Delete
  6. Thanks a lot Diana :) That was very helpful and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Each and every words in the Holy Quran have never been different from one era to another since the days of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). There were no version 1.0 nor A,B,C. The Holy Quran is memorized by thousand of Huffaz (keepers) from all over the word, word by word, without a single difference between them so that make the contents could not be manipulated nor changed becoz they are words of God. It is by no chance that a large number of people would lie on a same thing for more than 1,400 years. That fact alone made it extremely trustworthy.

    My question to you is simple. How sure are u that your references​ to other Books are correct & the contents therein by no means could be manipulated/changed by any human from their day of their inceptions until now?

    Why there are so many versions of the other Books? Why can't them be memorised without a single difference from each other?

    Can u give any trustworthy evidence that all of them are telling the same exact facts, let alone that they are not in any way using the exact/identical word by word between the different versions? Whose words are they really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Each and every words in the Holy Quran have never been different from one era to another since the days of the Prophet Muhammad " who said that?
      There re almost about up to 4000 differences between 2 version of Quran [ “HAFS”&”WARSH” ]>>>” القرآن الكريم وبهامشه التسهيل لقراءات التنزيل من الشاطبية والدرة محلى بشواهدهما مضمناً كتابي التيسير والتحبير – محمد فهد خاروف ، تقديم كريم راجح ، دار البيروتي ، دمشق ، ط 3 ، 1433 هـ / 2012 م ، (27.9 M) . "]]
      Muhammad Fahd Khaaruuf , examines different versions from 10 accepted readers and indicates about 4000 differences

      here is another one>>>> an encyclopedia (6 volumes) that shows differences of every single verse , it is called:
      ” معجم القراءات القرآنية مع مقدمة في القراءات وأشهر القراء “
      ” المؤلف: د. أحمد مختار عمر، و د. عبد العال سالم مكرم ”
      PDF for this book is available on line:
      [ [ http://www.hamassa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%AC%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-5.pdf ]

      GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR RESEARCH!

      Delete
    2. To help you
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

      Delete
    3. It should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A.Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe.

      And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

      Delete
  8. Techno Philia, you are totally missing my point. Even if Torah was wrong about certain things, i have given you enough evidence that the author of Quran has clearly confused between two characters who were recorded to have lived about 1000 years apart.

    Is it a coincidence that Harun was stated by Torah to have a sister Maryam and there comes the Quran stating that Maryam the mother of Jesus was Harun's sister. You wanna throw that away? Fine.

    Is it then a coincidence that Torah has a character Imran as the father of Harun, Moses and Maryam and there comes the Quran stating that the father of Maryam the mother of Jesus was Imran. Sorry, this cannot be a coincidence.

    Coincidences dont come in pairs. The author of Quran heard the Torah, mistook the sister of Harun as Jesus' mother. Thats it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As for your claim that Quran was never changed and perfectly preserved, here is something that totally destroys that claim - The Sana manuscript of the Quran... There are numerous corrections that was made to the Quran... The Sana manuscript was washed and rewritten again by the Umayyads.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript
    For example, in sura 2, verse 87, the lower text has wa-qaffaynā 'alā āthārihi whereas the standard text has wa-qaffaynā min ba'dihi

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sana manuscript is one of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran.

    ReplyDelete
  11. See this : http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/q-a/does-dr-puins-research-provide-evidence-that-the-quran-has-been-revised/



    The so-called manuscripts in Yemen are used out of desperation by the anti-Islamics. These are remnants of the misspelled Qurans and the altered ones that Caliph Uthman would've burnt. The Quran Scholars that compiled the Holy Book and wrote it with their own blessed hands is in our possessions. Anything found in remote lands, such as Yemen, Iraq, Iran or what have you are copies, and they do contain errors. They are not originals. The Quran that was compiled and what we have today did not original from Yemen, dear brother.

    I love the title "The end of the Quran as we know it". Perhaps the desperate and phony anti-Islamic should consider a title of "The end of praised pornography in the Bible as we know it". Of course I am being sarcastic, because the Bible does praise pornography.

    And what about the history of the Bible's compilation?? Man, if these people are only 10% critical of the Bible as they are of the Holy Quran, then I don't see how using their own logic they would not disown the Bible! I mean, some lousy found scrolls in Yemen that are only a copy of some of the Holy Quran is the end of our Holy Quran as we know it, simply because they contain misspellings and some missing words constitutes the end of our Holy Book, but the overwhelming amount of contradictions and fables and corruptions, and praised pornography in the Bible don't mean a thing to these people??

    Also, Abdallah bin Sabaa' and other Jews who fought Islam originated from Yemen. So these scrolls could very very well be doctored copies ON PURPOSE.

    Here is the bottom line dear brother: The Original and real Scrolls of the Holy Quran came from Madina, and we have them! I even have a picture of them in one of the links that is in the section that I gave above. Everything outside of this belongs to the fire. Like I said, Caliph Uthman would've happily burnt these (possibly doctored) scrolls from Yemen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. //The so-called manuscripts in Yemen are used out of desperation by the anti-Islamics. These are remnants of the misspelled Qurans and the altered ones that Caliph Uthman would've burnt//

    Congrats for a bogus claim with zero evidence.

    //Also, Abdallah bin Sabaa' and other Jews who fought Islam originated from Yemen. So these scrolls could very very well be doctored copies ON PURPOSE.//

    If they wanted to alter the Quran on purpose, they could have done it way better than this. Your claim holds no water. So much as to say "Jews made it" lol.

    //Here is the bottom line dear brother: The Original and real Scrolls of the Holy Quran came from Madina, and we have them! I even have a picture of them in one of the links that is in the section that I gave above.//

    Show us the photo. There is none in the link you gave. Show us the DATING of the manuscript as well. Better be early.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I appreciate your struggle to find truth. May God help you to follow the right path.
    I would like to say that even though if it is established that the Sana manuscripts are the oldest( a hypothetical scenario) then also it can't be the original Quran. Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him) and it was used to be memorised by him and all the companions of him. It would then be recited daily 5 times a day compulsorily , every year during the month of Ramadan whole of the Quran is being recited in an extra prayer called taraweeh. It was memorised word to word and in some in the exact rhythm of prophet , SO if any discrepancy is found would be corrected. in addition to this many scrolls older than that of Sana were found . To prevent further discrepancies and to have a standard , caliph uthman( ra) ordered to make a standard full fledged copy of Quran known as Uthmani standard Quran. Also caliph Uthman(R.A) destroyed other fabricated scrolls , so if Sana scrolls given to him at that time then he would surely have destroyed it too happily. So, this argument makes two points 1. Quran was preserved in the brains of many Huffaz and it was recited word to word by them most of the time, 5 times a day , and almost all of them recited it completely atleast once in year. 2. Caliph UThman destroyed many other fabricated scrolls so there is possibility that they were older than those of Sana too, Therefore saying that Sana manuscript id oldest so it is authentic and todays standard is deviated is saying false .Truth is other way round . If Quran is fabricated then why didn't it get deviated till now from the Uthmani standard? please note point that verbal Quran was standard before UThmani standard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please read the whole text carefully.

    DOES DR. PUIN’S RESEARCH PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE QUR’AN HAS BEEN REVISED?
    Dr. Gerd. R. Puin wrote an article under the title of “Observations on early Qur’an manuscripts in Sana”. This article concludes that:

    1) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif is written in an incorrect way
    2) There are some differences in the numbering of verses in some surah’s (chapters of the Qur’an)
    3) In 2 or 3 sheets he has found the surahs are written in an alternative order to that of the standard Quran

    Before I start to discuss his claims, it must be noted that Dr. Puin himself mentions that these discrepancies are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant advances in the filed of Qur’anic studies.

    A Note on Recurrent Oral Tradition

    The Qur’an is preserved historical document. There are two intellectual traditions regarding the preservation of the Qur’an, an oral tradition and a textual tradition. I will not detail the textual tradition here, but it will suffice to mention that we have many manuscripts of the Qur’an dated back to the first century after the hijra. These can be compared to the current copies we have today, and it can be seen that nothing has been altered.

    The oral tradition of the Qur’an is a phenomenon unique to Islam. There is an estimate of over 20 Million hufadh (people who have memorised the Qur’an) in the world, and millions of these hufadh have learnt the Qur’an via a direct transmission starting from the Prophet (s) himself. The implications of this are astonishing. If millions of people who have memorised the Qur’an can trace their oral memorisation of the Qur’an down the centuries of teachers and scholars all the way back to the Prophet himself, who could doubt the authenticity of this oral tradition? Especially if these millions of hufadh live in different places in the world and have learnt the Qur’an via different teachers and scholars. The amount of varying oral transmissions and the amount of people who have learnt the Qur’an – in addition to there being no discrepancy in what they have memorised – is not a historical accident. The conclusion can only be that the Qur’an memorised today is the one that was taught 1400 years ago. There is no other rational explanation for this unique oral phenomenon.

    Arguments that attempt to undermine the oral tradition can only be described as conspiratorial and absurd. Unless someone argues that all of these hufadh throughout the ages – at different points in time and different places in the world – somehow came together to ensure that they all memorised and recited the exact same Qur’an, then there is no alternative explanation. To pose such an argument is irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Refuting the claims

    1) The incorrect writing of the alif at some places does not in any way effect the integrity of the text as a whole. This is due to the fact that the oral recurrent reporting of the Quranic text has always been used as the standard reference. The skeletal form or the representation of the text in the Arabic language has always been used as a secondary reference. Hence when a hafidh (someone who has memorised the Quran) refers to a copy of the Qur’an with a small mistake such as an incorrect alif, he will easily understand the word and make the correction. Take for example the word ‘understanding’ in English. If read the following way: “understndng” anyone could comprehend the meaning, especially if the incorrectly spelt word was placed in a sentence.

    2) Differences in the numbering of verses have never been a cause for concern with regards to the textual integrity of the Qur’anic text. Classical Muslim scholarship has debated many opinions on the where a verse starts and where one should finish, hence difference in numbering. This difference in numbering doesn’t affect the text as a whole. Even Flugel, a famous Orientalist numbered the Qur’an differently from the standard text. It must be noted that Dr Puin doesn’t mention changes to the text, only in the numbering of the verses, which has no impact on the text as a whole.

    3) It is well known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation. Thus for instance, A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs according to their order of publication. And early in the twentieth century a Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” Moreover, it has been reported that the companions of the Prophet Muhammed used to keep copies whose arrangement of surahs was different though there were no differences in the verse arrangement.

    The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with what is called “revisions” – even though they are irrelevant and minor – is not evidence for a revised Qur’an. The oral tradition of the Qur’an is so well established that any minor textual “error” can be easily rectified. The arrangement of the surahs and verses do not effect the text but are arbitrary methods to counting and splitting the text up; which has no bearing on the textual integrity of the Qur’an.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur'an published in Cairo in which is written:

    Ibrhim next to Ibrhm
    Quran next to Qrn
    Simahum next to Simhum

    In the oldest Yemeni Qur'anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common."

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can cut paste last three comments and google them to find the source and extra reading.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let ask you 1 question are you a hindu or an atheist?
    if you are a hindu then how can you religion says that believing in one god is also a hindu and in no god is also a hindu?
    Does your religion gives you regulation how to distribute the wealth among children? Our says so . So please don't consider Quran as a war manual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who told you that believing in no god is Hinduism? And why should a book tell me how to distribute wealth amongst my children? The problem with muslims is that they want to follow the kuran to the t.
      Remember this....wisdom overrides everything!

      Delete
    2. Arrogance leads to fall.

      the topic about distribution of wealth is an answer to the claim that Quran is not a war manual.

      Following Quran isn't a problem.

      Ever heard of the term Nastik??

      Read the following:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Āstika_and_nāstika

      Delete
    3. Mr Jawad congrat for your effort .differences in Qurans is not only "alif" there are way more than that.
      Here are 4 categories of differences that you can find differences between at lest 2 existing Quran{Hafs,Warsh):
      a) Graphical/Basic Letter Differences
      b) Diacritical Differences
      c) Vowel Differences
      d) Basmalah Difference
      here is a link that you can see those differences>>>
      http://www.apartheidsharia.com/recitation-problem-hafswarsh-versions-quran/

      Delete
    4. Just because the Quran is a legal document and political document doesn't imply it's superior as a religious document.

      Delete
  19. The lower text of the Sana manuscript has over 100 differences from todays quran. Entire words are sometimes added or subtracted. My next article will cover that in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Difference in sana manuscripts doesn't mean that the Quran of today is altered.

    ReplyDelete
  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G1lnroANwI

    ReplyDelete
  22. Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." Quran Ch.19 (27-28)


    The question is, what Mary (the mother of Jesus) has to do with Aaron or how Mary is the sister of Aaron? If you know Arabic you will understand the meaning, as you know in Arabic this is a respectful way of talking, the meaning her is that O Mary you came from a respectful family how could you do such thing? As you all know that Aaron as well as Moses (Peace be upon them) were leaderships of sons of Israel, in other words you Mary from the family of Aaron how could you do such thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, very poorly constructed argument was posted

      Delete
    2. It should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A.Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe.

      And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

      Delete
  23. The arabic is very clear - "Yaa ukhta Haroona"... Meaning sister of Haroon. The Quran verse alleges that Jews used this phrase, not arabs.

    If the Jews call someone "sister of X" is a symbolic way, they use this to refer to CONTEMPORARIES, ie, people who lived round about the same time.

    Haroon and Mary did NOT live around the same time. This means the Quran verse has a problem.

    You say, she was being compared to her own family members. Exactly my point! She was being compared to her father, mother and brother Haroon, this is because the author of Quran thought Haroon was Mary's brother. This issue comes from his belief that the Miriam character in Torah was Jesus' mother.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is important to realise that my argument is not merely based on Quran 19:28 alone.

    I mentioned a second remarkable evidence for the same error - ie Quran 3:35 - 3:45 describing Imran's wife giving birth to Mary.

    Imran was the father of Moosa, Harun and Maryam... The author of Quran obviously mistook this Maryam as Jesus' mother.

    As for the hadith, it is very important to note ONE THING. That Muhammad gave this explanation ONLY AFTER the information of Moses having lived long before Jesus, being delivered by the Xtians of Najran. So, this hadith tells Muhammad's position after getting the vital information. To know his position before getting this information, you need to read the verses delivered as part of Quran, as they came earlier than the dialogue with Najranis.

    It is also curious to note that Muhammad sent Mughira to Najran to recite the Quran WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE MEANING OF A VERSE!! Ie, he couldnt answer the Najranis.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Does the word imartu really mean only wife?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. the people didn't address her formally in such a way it was an expression of astonishment no one speaks to people like good morning sister of Aaron...lol.....it was an expression of astonishment as to say "Righteous woman how do you show up with a baby?" remember this was equivalent of a nun showing up with a baby and someone saying "Daughter of Christ!" or "Mary Mother of God!" or "OH my God" or many other expressions but let me ask you when someone you know is shocked by something you did and says "Oh my God Rahul, how could you?" would you really assume they were considering you to be God?

    ReplyDelete
  28. It should be noted that the alleged speakers in this verse ("O sister of Harun") are 1st century Jews, not Arabs! We have absolutely no examples in Jewish literature around 1st-3rd century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A.Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe.

    And when Jesus is labelled as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. Same can be said about Elizabeth being called as "of the daughters of Aaron". As such, the usages "son of" and "daughter of" are understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrases "brother of" and "sister of" were not used by the Jews to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

    ReplyDelete
  29. //Does the word imartu really mean only wife?//

    Imra'at means "woman" literally. When imra'at is immediately followed by a person's name or title, in quranic arabic it always means his wife.

    Eg: 66:10 - Imra'ata Noohin = Nooh's wife. Imra'ata Lootin = Loot's wife.

    12:30 - Imra'atu al-azeezi = The chief's wife.

    It is absurd to translate it as "woman" rather than "wife".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rahul Balakrishnan here is the proof:

    1) That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

    (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #156)

    Have you ever heard of Jews making a grave charge about Aaron’s sister in Torah? No!

    The grave charge was that the Jews not believing in the virginity of Mary accused her of being a harlot. Muhammad therefore would know what the Jews thought about Jesus and his mother and there could be no confusion so now I have proven 100% that you were wrong because no Jew has ever denigrated the actual prophetess Mariam

    I do thank you for your persistence that has led to the answer coming directly from the Quran and it is quite amazing and clear

    ReplyDelete
  31. Asana Bodhithartha, let me help you with some LOGIC. The idea was that Jews blasphemed against Mary - you say this is not from Torah. Correct! This is not from Torah! Noone says it is. This is from stories about Mary and Jesus that were popular in Arabia. The thing however, is that Muhammad clearly had a notion that this Mary and Miriam, the sister of Moses was the one and the same person.

    He held this notion until it was broken by the Christians of Najran (as I have clearly described in my article).

    ReplyDelete
  32. the claim debunked here
    Mary, Sister Of Aaron?
    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. Each and every point of that article is answered in my article.

    Last 4 paras show you why 1st century Jews COULD NOT have called Mary "sister of Aaron".

    The hadith statememt "the people of the old used to name people after the prophets" was made by Muhammad only after the Christians of Najran told that Jesus and Moses lived long apart. So that hadith tells nothing about Muhammad's stance BEFORE he got the info that Jesus and Moses lived long apart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now listen you idiot, that Hadith CLEARLY Proves you Islamophobes are WRONG. It is quite strange that islamophobes quote the same exact hadith that debunks Islamophobes and proves them wrong, yet at the same time these islamophobes quote such Hadith to prove their point.

      You wrote,"The hadith statememt "the people of the old used to name people after the prophets" was made by Muhammad only after the Christians of Najran told that Jesus and Moses lived long apart. So that hadith tells nothing about Muhammad's stance BEFORE he got the info that Jesus and Moses lived long apart."

      This is YOUR misinterpretation of the Hadith. You do realize in your heart that the hadith which you quoted ACTUALLY REFUTES your entire argument, yet you are citing it to prove your point.

      Do you know why? This is because it is well recorded in Hadith and Islamic traditions that Mary (Mother of Jesus) lived several centuries later after Harun (Aaron). I have references from Islamic traditions that debunk and expose lies of you Islamophobes. So you have failed to prove your stupid point.

      Delete
  34. It was at the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. that it was decided to burn all the other Christian writings apart from those scriptures that were accepted as canonical. Usman (r) gave the order to burn all the other existing copies of the Qur’an apart from the version which was compiled upon his instructions. What is the difference between the action of the Nicea Council and that of Usman?
    In both the incidents that have been mentioned here, except for the act of burning to which each party had resorted, every other occurrence is vastly different. The differences between the two eventsmay be summarised as follows.

    1. The Synod at the council of Nicea had burnt more than forty books on the life and message of Jesus that had been written by many within the first three centuries after Jesus.

    2. The Aprocryphal Books were ordered to be burnt primarly because they gave an account of Jesus that was almost totally different and even contradictory to the picture of Jesus as portrayed in the four gospels that were accepted as canonical at the council of Nicea had reported, in the acts of the Apostles, the twenty one articles, and in the most accounts of the Book of Revelations. On the other hand, it was the well-founded and genuine apprehension on the part of Usman (r) that the versions of the Qur’an, that were written in the dialects of the various regions, might in all probability, transpire that serious alternatives of the original will replace the original among the succeeding generations, which ultimately led him to adopt an official version and to burn out all the other existing, accepted versions.

    3. The ideas enshrined within the burnt Apocryphal books have, forever, disappeared with their being burnt. The verses of the Qur’an, as recorded in the private scrolls, were the same as was to be found in the official versions. Even though the private versions were burnt to do away with the differences in pronunciation, the verses which they contained are, nevertheless, to be found in the same form in the copies of the Qur’an that exists today.

    4. Although rejected by the Nicea Council many of the Apocryphal books lingered on in the minds of the Christians even much later. Indeed, some of the stories that were narrated in them were passed on from one generation to the next. The final word on the matter was made by the Tentrose Synod held in the sixteenth century. It was through a decree entitled On the Canonical Books that the fourth council of the Synod, held on the eighth of April, 1540 C.E, declared that the Old Testament contained 45 books while the New Testament has only 27. This was the last word on the canonical books as far as the council was concerned. On the other hand, ever since Usman (r) first collected the official versions of the Qur’an and burnt the private ones, the Mushaf continues to be reproduced from those copies to the present day. Nobody has ventured to make any changes what so ever.

    5. The person who presided over the Nicea Council which ordered the burning of all the books that were written on the Gospels apart from the canonical ones, was the emperor Constantine who, up to that day, had not entertained any faith in Jesus whatsoever. As for Usman (r), who had ordered the destruction of the private versions of the Qur’an as well as the recitation of the Qur’an to be based only on the official versions, he was, besides being a faithful worshipper of God, the closest companion of Muhammad () and was the one who had participated alongside him in many a battle that was waged for the protection of the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  35. To Rahul Balakrishnan,

    Your whole arguments are wrong. Why did you make this conclusion? Because you didn’t know contexts, history, and stories relevant to Quran, Islam and Allah but just picked up some ayats from Quran in order to verify you are knowledgeable. It’s not true but an evil behavior.

    Let me explain ayat of 19:28 in the holy Quran to you so that you could spread right knowledge to other people. “O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, not was your mother unchaste.” Here, Aaron is a metaphor standing for a good worshipper and pious person. You may use another word to understand this calling, O sister of MARY because MARY is a good worshipper alone to Allah (God). Moses and Aaron were not brothers. They were in a different time than Mary, earlier 1500 years before than her. “Your father was not a man of evil, not was your mother unchaste.” Here, conversation means your father was a prophet and your mother was a good woman. Why could you do that having a baby out of father? It was shameful. Actually Mary’s mom originally wanted to have a boy rather than a girl but Allah gave her mom a girl Mary. Because Allah knows when Mary’s son was born and appointed him to be a prophet. All were Allah’s arrangement. It happened at right place and time for right person. Earlier or later would not be good. Because people didn’t understand why Mary’s son was born without father, they made up Jesus and the Bible as well religion of Christian on purpose. Jesus said I am not lord of Christian but am a prophet of religion Islam.

    Because of ignorance, you made this argument and conclusion, please prepare questions as much as you can and book time with local mosque as well as get correct answers.

    Thanks,



    ReplyDelete
  36. Look at the verse that addresses her as sister of Aaron as Haroon:

     "Then she brought the baby with her baby.

     ♦ �� # they said, (who they are saying ?? The Jews said, "The Jews say that the Qur'an is not the only one that says that the Qur'an says:
    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
     Mariam ... you have done something objectionable ... Haroon's sister ...... your father was not a bad man. Your mother was not a lewd thong. "(Qur'an 19: 27,28).

    # In these verses, the prophecy of Israel concerning the birth of the Children of Israel was referenced.

     'Harun's sister ......' is not a # absolute statement of the Qur'an; It is particularly noteworthy that the Qur'an quotes the address of the children of Israel at that time. Therefore, the inquiry of whether or not such an address was born during Jesus' birth. To realize that this argument is a proof of its morality and superiority to doubt the historicality of the Qur'an when conducting such an investigation.

    After Moses, # Aaron is the most filled of the Pentateuch. Jehovah and his children chose the priesthood. Call on 'Aaron, your brother, and his sons Nadab, Abihu, La'az, and Ithamar, to serve as priests for me from the sons of Israel.' "(Exodus 28: 1) The Jewish priesthood is based on Jehovah's command to Moses.

     Aaron's sons (Leviticus 1: 7) and the House (Psalm 115: 10) refer to the Ahoron people (Amrish). The phrase indicates that the priesthood had begun from Aaron.

     The priesthood fellowship of the Old Testament was divided into 24 units. Each unit was the leader of the church for a week (1 Chronicles 24: 1-19). Zechari'ah was the father of John the Baptist. (Luke 1: 5-9). At that time, there was the tradition of calling the elderly members of the priesthood with Aaron.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
    ♦♦ What about Zacharias' wife Elizabeth? Luke says:

     "And of the sons of Aaron he was a widow:
    Her name is Elizabeth "(Luke 1: 5).

    Elizabeth is an elderly person who has lived for more than a hundred years. And yet
     # About the Bible
    ♦♦ "Aaron's daughter" Before John's birth, John was born. Elizabeth's fact is that a common practice in those days was the style of referring to the names of the well-known of Aaron.
    From the so-called "daughter of Aaron" you can clearly understand.
    The Bible says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Look at the verse that addresses her as sister of Aaron as Haroon:

     "Then she brought the baby with her baby.

     ♦ 👉 # they said, (who they are saying ?? The Jews said, "The Jews say that the Qur'an is not the only one that says that the Qur'an says:
    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
     Mariam ... you have done something objectionable ... Haroon's sister ...... your father was not a bad man. Your mother was not a lewd thong. "(Qur'an 19: 27,28).

    # In these verses, the prophecy of Israel concerning the birth of the Children of Israel was referenced.

     'Harun's sister ......' is not a # absolute statement of the Qur'an; It is particularly noteworthy that the Qur'an quotes the address of the children of Israel at that time. Therefore, the inquiry of whether or not such an address was born during Jesus' birth. To realize that this argument is a proof of its morality and superiority to doubt the historicality of the Qur'an when conducting such an investigation.

    After Moses, # Aaron is the most filled of the Pentateuch. Jehovah and his children chose the priesthood. Call on 'Aaron, your brother, and his sons Nadab, Abihu, La'az, and Ithamar, to serve as priests for me from the sons of Israel.' "(Exodus 28: 1) The Jewish priesthood is based on Jehovah's command to Moses.

     Aaron's sons (Leviticus 1: 7) and the House (Psalm 115: 10) refer to the Ahoron people (Amrish). The phrase indicates that the priesthood had begun from Aaron.

     The priesthood fellowship of the Old Testament was divided into 24 units. Each unit was the leader of the church for a week (1 Chronicles 24: 1-19). Zechari'ah was the father of John the Baptist. (Luke 1: 5-9). At that time, there was the tradition of calling the elderly members of the priesthood with Aaron.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
    ♦♦ What about Zacharias' wife Elizabeth? Luke says:

     "And of the sons of Aaron he was a widow:
    Her name is Elizabeth "(Luke 1: 5).

    Elizabeth is an elderly person who has lived for more than a hundred years. And yet
     # About the Bible
    ♦♦ "Aaron's daughter" Before John's birth, John was born. Elizabeth's fact is that a common practice in those days was the style of referring to the names of the well-known of Aaron.
    From the so-called "daughter of Aaron" you can clearly understand.
    The Bible says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36).

    ReplyDelete
  38. ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
    ♦♦ What about Zacharias' wife Elizabeth? Luke says:

     "And of the sons of Aaron he was a widow:
    Her name is Elizabeth "(Luke 1: 5).

    Elizabeth is an elderly person who has lived for more than a hundred years. And yet
     # About the Bible
    ♦♦ "The daughter of Aaron's daughter". Before John's birth, John was born. Elizabeth's fact is that a common practice in those days was the style of referring to the names of the well-known of Aaron.
    From what you called 'The daughter of Aaron's daughter' can be clearly understood.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I heard claims that now, they are saying that joachim’s arabic name is imran . . .is this true?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Marry's father is Heli not Joachim. And Heli sounds linguistically similiar to Ali or Ali Imrah person whose name mentioned in the Qur'an

    ReplyDelete
  41. The fact that you have dedicated your life to bashing and mispresenting islam is what makes it a true religion. NO Muslim will ever bash Christianity. That will be absurd and retarded of him or her..so please go to war at 16..eat pork..drink wine..allow your women to come out dressed like animals ( cos like animals are always naked just like your women)..and let "Jesus" continue to die for your sins although we dont know if he died for the past..present or future things..if he did die for all your sins then please continue in the contemptous ways..kill all the Arabs for their dictatorship but let kim job un live..be Satanists..be homosexuals do what ever the fuck you want cos Jesus supposedly died for your sins..Then US, we are the true servants of God and we will serve him the easy and the hard way..Till we return to his presence and receive his judgement..so please..hate away

    ReplyDelete