YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.

If that were the case, then I would think you wouldn't have to repeat it here since we would already know it.Well known to whom, exactly? To the nutcakes who think that Jack Chick has anything sensible to say?

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Your second link, bible.ca, is pretty much anti-evolution. That pretty much destroys its credibility as a source of information; it's clearly a site devoted to some evangelical religious cause, and its creators obviously let their religious biases determine what they are going to believe.The first link is a site that is obvious a extreme anti-Islam site, and, in fact, they don't present any information that I can verify.This is the problem with trying to state your case by simply posting links. You haven't established the credibility of your websites, so posting the links aren't all that useful.What evidence and arguments to you have to advance your claims? On what sources, preferably in the academic primary literature (or at least sites that reference the academic literature) are you basing your claims? I mean, surely you wouldn't trust a pro-Islam site that disputed your claims, would you? Why should anyone else trust sites that are clearly anti-Islam?

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

That will be good. At the very least we need some indication of the credentials of the people making these claims, how they obtained their facts, and how they arrived at their conclusions.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Well, good. Now maybe you can summarize their data and arguments. That is what I'm trying to get out of you. It is considered bad form here to just post links (unless someone is simply asking for sources of information). Links are meant to be citations for the data and arguments that you are presenting.So that is what you need to do. Simply posting links doesn't count as an argument.- The only relevant questions I see in your last post is: The answers are: yes, academic literature would be more credible to me. And it isn't the institutions that are important as much as where the information was published; respected peer reviewed journals are preferable to web sites maintained by organizations with agendas.But, again, the point isn't just for you to post links. You need to actually argue your case, providing links (or other citations) as references you used to obtain your facts and arguments.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies