A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

Wow, you've really outdone yourself. You made that dog jump through a flaming hoop. I'm impressed at your level of self-delusion. Now, if you could only do something about that smell.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Wow, you've really outdone yourself. You made that dog jump through a flaming hoop. I'm impressed at your level of self-delusion. Now, if you could only do something about that smell.

---

While I do not agree with all of Wordswordsman's comments and while I do not always appreciate his attitude, I think that your comments are in violation with the forum rules. Rules three and four state:

quote:

---

Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

​

Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

---

Notice that rule three does not allow for a lessening of respect after another debater displays disrespect. Respect for the opponent is still the rule regardless of his actions.Please also notice that, in keeping with rule four, any assertion regarding someone's character should be supported with explanations and/or evidence for its validity.Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making negative comments similar to the one above.Thank You

Percy has been busy elsewhere, and out of contact with this site for a while. He has, however, given me the power to suspend individual's posting powers. Nos is on very thin ice.Adminnemooseus

Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
(Who invented the idea of a flat Earth? - ChristianAnswers.Net)Next, as to when large ocean-going ships are known to have been available, it is known the Sumerians invented large sail-driven ships that were also equipped with oars for times there was no wind. That goes back as far as 1500 BC. The Syrians used sailing craft of war, too. The picture offered of Solomon's boat was a pleasure craft similar to what the Pharoahs favored for their grand tours, not a boat of war. Start here:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/...ors/05sailors12.htmAt sea in the night one can see light of a lighthouse, then the light itself ON the horizon, slowly "rising" upon approach, similar to the rising of the moon. When the water is calm, like a sheet of glass, anything at all on the horizon is very discernable without a telescope. All ships appear to rise out of the horizon, growing taller as well as larger upon approach. At sea, upon approach of a snow-capped mountain range, all one sees on the horizon is the mound of snow "sitting" upon the sea. It looks like only a cloud. Drawing nearer the snow rises to reveal the ever rising mountain. It doesn't take a textbook to teach a person the earth surface is continually curved. I would suspect a person in antiquity would be laughed to scorn who would insist the earth was flat, in any culture, for it was known that no man had found any edge of the earth, nor was it looked for, a puzzle not present in ancient literature. There was no dispute until much later long AFTER the Old Testament books were written.It is just one of those things the average person wouldn't dispute if they had seen any of those effects wherever they went on earth. Aristotle made it official that the earth was a sphere.It is clear that the Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat, emphasizing the circle OF the earth, and history reveals there was no dispute about that in Bible days. The problem exists in the livs of a handfull of people, not with the majority of thinkers.

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:Please also notice that, in keeping with rule four, any assertion regarding someone's character should be supported with explanations and/or evidence for its validity.

​

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making negative comments similar to the one above.

​

Thank You[/QUOTE]All you have to do is read what he has been posting and you'll see that I'm justified in my opinion of him. He does everything he can to make whatever you say fit into his beliefs. Not only does he jump through hoops he'll bring in the the entire circus to do it.But, hey, you're new here and after awhile you'll come to see this as well. That is unless you like banging your head against a dense wall.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-05-2002]

quote:
----------------------
Sword, the reason I start to quote your so-called holy texts was because Peter Borger asked me to. [He slips away somehow, maybe locked in another flame throwing session vs SLPx]. I did, and I learned some valuable lessons from it.
1. If your attitude is the usual attitude of Christians, then I'd sooner be an atheist then follow your ways. Do you expect people to convert by name-calling and such? You'd only get flames. Even nos482 can't stand you.
------------------------------WS: Before 9/11 I had several physical threats from Muslims around the world and even from US cities. Those threats came after having debated them sensibly. One they decided I had head enough of their truth, I must decide- believe or die as a double-damned infidel. After 9/11 I submittted all the information I had to the FBI, never hearing from them again.
But they didn't represent the average Muslim. Most don't have a clue as to the Quranic message, finding great alarm when I quoted from it. It really hasn't been dificult to disuade people from following Islam.Mine is not the usual, general attitude of most Christians who really don't have a belief about Muslims, ignorant of their error. They just go along their daily lives trying to concentrate on Christianity, ignoring other religions. I concentrate on evangelism, ignoring the pleas of liberal "Christian" protestant sects that are right now claiming Judaism and other religions are paths to God. They abandon the teachings of the Bible and Christianity itself. I recognize the love of God for all men, taking much time from otherwise pleasurable activities to preach the gospel and practice Bible apologetics. If I hated people I would be happier fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, working out at every opportunity, letting the world go to hell without a whisper from me.I find your direct assault on the core of Christianity, openly denying the claim of Jesus Christ as God indeed, to be akin to Jihad, a clear announcement of religious war. Few Muslims do that, knowing they can't support that statement. You can't support your statement, but opened yourself up to a very embarasing predicament. How will you rescue Muhammad now? In most discussions it has not been necessary to disparage Muhammad, coming to the real problems of Islam long before name calling might be resorted to. But right away you jumped to the last resort, requiring the correct extreme contrast in rebuttal. You brought that upon yourself. You departed from simply thinking there is some error in the Bible to challenging the central point of my faith. Most Christians would be left speechless, but not this one. There is no wet spagetti response appropriate to your published claim. Yuor own religion claims Jesus a prophet, then you say his claim is bogus. Jesus is therefore to you a false prophet. Islam esteems Him in part, therefore esteems false prophets if any are esteemed.quote:
----------------------------
2. [For myself] Never claim anything using Bible verses as reference. Not worth the trouble arguing and undefendable because the original texts are nonexistent. Only use empirical evidence for secular arguments and the Qur'an original text for religious arguments (if necessary).
--------------------------WS: You immunize yourself from any logical, methodical approach by requiring such source. Where is the original handwritten manuscript from the hand of Muhammad? Which disputd Quranic text ia the real, original one, and what proof is there of your answer?What the original manuscripts of the Bible contained is known because of the harmony of copies from many ages, confirmed by discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Those copies go back long before Quaranic copies existed, by far pasing the test of time.quote:
----------------------
Arguing with you has been a hard lesson to swallow, but I now understand what Christians really think. There goes my respect to you.
----------------------WS: You threw respect out the window from the outset. Look up the word respect, for your use of it is innaccurate. I like to set out "respecting" Islam at least by not attacking the Islamic honor of Muhammad publicly.I've had many interesting hours of discussion just comparing religions that all might judge which serves man and God more reasonably. We "agreed to disagree agreeably". That appears to be beyond reach here.Don't argue- just debate unattached to emotion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
All you have to do is read what he has been posting and you'll see that I'm justified in my opinion of him. He does everything he can to make whatever you say fit into his beliefs. Not only does he jump through hoops he'll bring in the the entire circus to do it.

​

But, hey, you're new here and after awhile you'll come to see this as well. That is unless you like banging your head against a dense wall.

---

The justification of your opinion does not justify the posting of that opinion against forum rules.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
All you have to do is read what he has been posting and you'll see that I'm justified in my opinion of him. He does everything he can to make whatever you say fit into his beliefs. Not only does he jump through hoops he'll bring in the the entire circus to do it.

​

But, hey, you're new here and after awhile you'll come to see this as well. That is unless you like banging your head against a dense wall.

---

​

The justification of your opinion does not justify the posting of that opinion against forum rules.

---

Give it time and you will see. I guess that you'll just have to learn for yourself the hard way.As I've stated many times. We only have to respect one's right to express one's beliefs and opinions. Not the beliefs or opinions themselves. It wouldn't be much of a debate if everyone agreed on everything. That would be a creationists board where they only allow fellow creationists to say anything and ban all others at the drop of a hat.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Jeffrey Burton Russell... that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."

---

Again you show the difficulty you have with TIME. You notice that Russell starts at 'antiquity' around AD 300 or so. This, I repeat, is about 3000 years later in history than the time frame under discussion. This confusion of chronology only makes you look bad.

quote:

---

Next, as to when large ocean-going ships are known to have been available, it is known the Sumerians invented large sail-driven ships that were also equipped with oars for times there was no wind. That goes back as far as 1500 BC.

---

And again... 1500 BC is a much too recent date. The myths of Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, etc. were well established by 3500 BC.

quote:

---

Start here:
05sailors12.htm

​

[Shortened too-long link. --Admin]

---

And this helps your case how? The ships illustrated are essentially the same as the one I cited. Many of them are much more primative vessels.

quote:

---

At sea in the night one can see light of a lighthouse, then the light itself ON the horizon, slowly "rising" upon approach, similar to the rising of the moon.

---

And a few miles out an oil tanker looks like a matchbox car. A few more miles and it is a dot on the horizon. I have watched ships at the coast. It isn't as damned obvious as you'd like me to believe.The effect depends, as well, upon how far out to sea one goes. That is, if you hug the coast you don't see a lot come over the horizon. Things like land get in the way.

quote:

---

When the water is calm, like a sheet of glass, anything at all on the horizon is very discernable without a telescope.

---

Define very discernable. Do you mean that you can see something on the horizon?

quote:

---

All ships appear to rise out of the horizon, growing taller as well as larger upon approach.

---

Perspective will wash out the effect in the case of a ten foot tall ship. Add to this the motion of the waves.

quote:

---

It doesn't take a textbook to teach a person the earth surface is continually curved.

---

It does take a person capable of thinking in those terms though. I cannot find any good sources on the web, but march down to a used book store and grab a few cultural anthropological case studies. Many cultures view the cosmos in radically different terms than we do in the west today.

quote:

---

I would suspect a person in antiquity would be laughed to scorn who would insist the earth was flat

---

Again you display a confusion of chronology. No webpage found at provided URL: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node31.html

quote:

---

There was no dispute until much later long AFTER the Old Testament books were written.

---

You may be right, but that there was not dispute does not mean that people thought the Earth was spherical.Here's a good one: Ancient Cosmology of the EarthAnd another: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_1A1C.HTMAnd another:
Three views of cosmologyAnd another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/RushEngr/private/aspects.htmAnd another:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/HEBREWS.html
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-05-2002][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-06-2002]

An existing topic, "Hows the Debate? Debaters and their Style", seems to be a good place for this topic digression. Please take it there, and be nice.Any further of this "digression", at this topic, is subject to deletion (and maybe posting priviledge suspension?).Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:
---------------------------
You may be right, but that there was not dispute does not mean that people thought the Earth was spherical.
---------------------------WS: You haven't come up with a single proof from history or otherwise of the Hebrews knowing or not knowing the earth was spherical in shape. You won't be able to do that. All there is to be thrown around is argument. For instance, I can offer this from Can the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space? | HowStuffWorks
which is a very simplified example of how easy it should be to reason this out."QuestionCan the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space?AnswerIf you didn't know that the Earth is a sphere, there are three common observations you could use to convince yourself that it is.The first common observation is the shape of the moon. First, the face of the full moon is circular, and that would lead you to believe that it is a sphere rather than a disc. When the moon eclipses the sun, the shape of the shadow is always circular, which clinches a spherical shape for the moon. By extrapolation, you could assume that the Earth is a sphere also.Also notice that when the moon is being eclipsed by the Earth (a lunar eclipse), the part of the moon that is eclipsed is actually the shadow of the Earth. This shadow tells you that the Earth is a sphere just like the moon.A third way to see that the Earth is a sphere is to look at how objects in the distance "disappear" as you get farther away. For example, a 100-foot-tall ship that is 15 miles away is not visible. That's because it is blocked by the curvature of the Earth. As it approaches, it "rises." First the tip of the mast is visible, then more and more of the ship comes into view as the ship gets closer."Next, recall that Moses, writer of the first five books of the Bible, was raised in the court of Pharoah as a prince of Egypt. He was privy to the best they had to offer. What do you suppose they knew then? Check out 404error
Very interesting short history of geometry, the contents of which match up with every textbook I've been leafing through, and other websites including online encyclopedias.The Pythagorean theorum was known a thousand years before its time. Aristole also demonstrated the curvature of the earth, with no fanfare whatsoever about it not being flat. Most of the emphasis was on how large the earth was BASED on measurements of its curvature. Where is the earth shattering revelation the earth isn't flat if that was the belief before them? If that belief ended before them, then who is credited with that discovery? If men thought it was that way in ancient times, I would think much would have been made of that error a few hundred years BC. But there in no emphasis at all that I can find.This ongoing suspicion the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat is only a continuation of false assertions about Christians during the initial reactions to Darwinism. This sort of thinking is very typical of the continual desperation of atheists to find fault with the Bible. No matter how many times their ideas are refuted, they just keep coming back with more of the same, always amounting to nonsense. Unfounded accusations.

quote:

---

WS: You haven't come up with a single proof from history or otherwise of the Hebrews knowing or not knowing the earth was spherical in shape.

---

Please tell me you are not going to play the "prove-it" game by trying to play on the idea that not much can be technically proven.All of the evidence points to the belief in a flat earth. Actually, that is wrong. All of the evidence points towards belief in a flat landscape -- the idea of 'planet' which is implied in our word 'Earth' simply didn't exist. This, of course, you will deny.

quote:

---

All there is to be thrown around is argument. For instance, I can offer this from Can the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space? | HowStuffWorks
which is a very simplified example of how easy it should be to reason this out.

---

Well, you certainly could throw that out, but can you show that such chains of logic were actually followed by the Isrealites? No. The same chains of logic, if they are as blatantly obvious as you claim, should have been made by pretty every culture on the planet and that simply isn't the case. You'd know this if you read a few cultural anthropoplgical studies.By the way, we have discussed everything brought up by the copy/paste from howstuffworks.com. Repeating those arguments do not make them any better. How about addressing my objections directly? You aren't doing that, and we'd get a lot further if you would. [quote]Next, recall that Moses, writer of the first five books of the Bible[/b][/quote]Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, despite their having been attributed to him.I know this is pointless:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa079.htm

quote:

---

What do you suppose they knew then? Check out 404error

---

Gee, that's interesting. And it applies to the debate how?

quote:

---

The Pythagorean theorum was known a thousand years before its time.

---

Yeah, no kidding!!! And this applies to the debate how?

quote:

---

Aristole also demonstrated the curvature of the earth, with no fanfare whatsoever about it not being flat.

---

How many times do I have to point out that this is some 3000 years later than the time when these myths were born? Are you truly that dense or are you just ignoring me?

quote:

---

This ongoing suspicion the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat is only a continuation of false assertions about Christians during the initial reactions to Darwinism.

---

BS.

quote:

---

This sort of thinking is very typical of the continual desperation of atheists to find fault with the Bible.

---

LOL.....Keep talking. The more you post the better my case looks.

quote:

---

No matter how many times their ideas are refuted, they just keep coming back with more of the same, always amounting to nonsense.

---

This claim would carry more weight if you had actually refuted something. You haven't even addressed my concerns head-on, but merely repeated your assertions over and over.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sword,

quote:

---

I find your direct assault on the core of Christianity, openly denying the claim of Jesus Christ as God indeed, to be akin to Jihad, a clear announcement of religious war. Few Muslims do that, knowing they can't support that statement. You can't support your statement, but opened yourself up to a very embarasing predicament. How will you rescue Muhammad now? In most discussions it has not been necessary to disparage Muhammad, coming to the real problems of Islam long before name calling might be resorted to. But right away you jumped to the last resort, requiring the correct extreme contrast in rebuttal. You brought that upon yourself. You departed from simply thinking there is some error in the Bible to challenging the central point of my faith. Most Christians would be left speechless, but not this one. There is no wet spagetti response appropriate to your published claim. Yuor own religion claims Jesus a prophet, then you say his claim is bogus. Jesus is therefore to you a false prophet. Islam esteems Him in part, therefore esteems false prophets if any are esteemed.

---

So I touched a sensitive religious nerve there. Vice versa. Your claims about the divinity of Jesus also touched mine. I now don't feel like arguing about these anymore. I believe that there is no god but Allah, and you believe that I will go to hell for that. You believe that acceptance of Jesus as savior is crucial to everybody's salvation, while I believe that accepting other substitutes besides Allah is an unforgivable offense. All of them are the central part of our religious experience, and one should have argued fiercely if those beliefs are attacked. However, argue as we may, I doubt that we can get anything worth out of it. My source is my religious text and you with yours. Our arguments are all based on things only we believe and not others believe.I never claimed that Jesus is a false prophet. The Islamic creed only considered him to be a prophet, no more than that. I have supplied some Qur'anic verses to back my claim. Of course you don't believe them. Then I have no other way of making you see my point except to wait for the afterlife. Only then will our disagreements can be settled. It's just a matter of who's going to heaven or hell, after all. Outsiders (atheists especially) would see it as ridiculous.About the original texts, I could claim that Muslims took great care to preserve the original texts of the Qur'an since Prophet Muhammad's death by means of Qur'an memorizers and written copies, but you perhaps already know that. There is only one version of the original text. Ask any Muslim you're currently debating right now; even the splinter groups Shiah and Ahmadiyah uses the same Arabic text.Unlike you, I am not quite fundamentalistic in my views. I might not be as zealous as some of my brothers whose dayjob is debating Christians; therefore I should restrain myself to scientific debates. Thats my main motive to stay in EvC.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I touched a sensitive religious nerve there. Vice versa. Your claims about the divinity of Jesus also touched mine. I now don't feel like arguing about these anymore. I believe that there is no god but Allah, and you believe that I will go to hell for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: The notion your religion proves the Bible is errant is highly illogical, silly. The topic is about the Bible, whether claims of errancy are true, not what the Quran says. An opposing religion is no proof for or against another religion. You need to understand my Bible clearly states that your belief will result in eternal separation from God if you don't repent. Where is the error in that? Your prophet came along a few hundred years after that was established, claiming it is not so. That is evidence of error? Well, by the same token, I come now, almost two millennia later, saying that the Holy Spirit came revealing to me the older words of Christ are true, those of Muhammad are false. See there? Your religion now stands as false by the standards imposed against Christianity by Islam. My revelation is at least as good as his was, man for man. Prove the Holy Spirit did not visit me with the truth. Muhammad SAID an angel approached him. What proof in that? None. It COULD have been a demon, a fallen angel, a bad dream.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that acceptance of Jesus as savior is crucial to everybody's salvation, while I believe that accepting other substitutes besides Allah is an unforgivable offense. All of them are the central part of our religious experience, and one should have argued fiercely if those beliefs are attacked. However, argue as we may, I doubt that we can get anything worth out of it. My source is my religious text and you with yours. Our arguments are all based on things only we believe and not others believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: So where in all that do you find support for error in the Bible, or support for denying the words of the prophet Jesus? The Bible says what it says. You can't support claims of error by comparing Bible statements to Quranic statements. It is a matter of belief, not error/inerrancy. The only errors are in how men deal with what is written. You are mixing too many principles in this debate. You actually have no purpose here if your platform is claimed authority of the Quran pitted against the Bible.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed that Jesus is a false prophet. The Islamic creed only considered him to be a prophet, no more than that. I have supplied some Qur'anic verses to back my claim. Of course you don't believe them. Then I have no other way of making you see my point except to wait for the afterlife. Only then will our disagreements can be settled. It's just a matter of who's going to heaven or hell, after all. Outsiders (atheists especially) would see it as ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: Islam doesn't directly claim Jesus was a false prophet, but Islam has re-created another Jesus, rewriting history, presenting a character that never existed. The Muslims' Prophet Jesus isn't the same Jesus of the Bible. That is no proof the Bible is in error concerning Jesus. The historian Josephus proves the Muslim account of history to be wrong anyway. By changing the account of the biblical Jesus, Muslims do in fact make a false prophet of that Jesus, in error. When you repeat those lies about the biblical Jesus, you become part of the guilt of defiling the Christ.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the original texts, I could claim that Muslims took great care to preserve the original texts of the Qur'an since Prophet Muhammad's death by means of Qur'an memorizers and written copies, but you perhaps already know that. There is only one version of the original text. Ask any Muslim you're currently debating right now; even the splinter groups Shiah and Ahmadiyah uses the same Arabic text
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: I am very familiar with the process of preserving the original text. The Hebrews did the same thing, but over a much longer period, with many individual books of many authors, all completely harmonious with each other. The writings of Muhammad are not checked by other authors, so his lone vision is without test by other men with verification his vision was from God. All must accept his vision or perish, regardless what God might have said to some other man then or men of another generation. That God only spoke to one man in all history is hardly palatable, especially that he would wait so long to speak to any. Taking the more reasonable approach that any living God would communicate with men before Muhammad came along, one should then compare all later revelations with the already present written record. If there is significant disparity especially concerning accepted historical facts, then there is obvious error, usually in subsequent works. Biased perspectives enter in to distort what really happened, such as the well known blatant attempt of modern critics of the Jewish holocaust in Germany, claiming it is fiction. Legitimate historians and respected journalists and authors have independently verified the datails of the horrible event, yet skeptics hold on to their deliberate error.In any case, not one original manusacript of the Quran exists, save very old copies of it. The same can be said of the Torah. The original text and language OF the original manuscripts have been preserved and are available to all. Every word has been certified as authentic, and the definitions of every word, as well as interpretations of those words, have been properly rendered in modern translations in other languages. English scholars are capable now of sitting with Hebrew scholars today, reading and studying the Torah together, never quarreling over a word or literal interpretation. The only significant differences are centered around overall interpretations of concepts such as the Messiah as concerning Christ Jesus, and other obvious differences between Judaism and Christianity.
That is further complicated within the various Jewish sects that disagree with each other over the message to be inferred of the Torah. But the fact the original Hebrew words of the Torah text remain identical to the original text is undeniable within any reason.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike you, I am not quite fundamentalistic in my views. I might not be as zealous as some of my brothers whose dayjob is debating Christians; therefore I should restrain myself to scientific debates. Thats my main motive to stay in EvC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: Then you must be a "moderate" believer, anathema to true Islamic believers. You believe in part? Why believe in part at all? Are some parts unacceptable? As for your being here, the basis of your involvement has brought problems for your faith, has it not? To continue would be certain to heap more insult on Islamic claims. I am not interested in destroying your faith until I see you headed toward the true faith, not wishing to make an atheist of you. I am concerned that you said you would prefer to be an atheist before accepting Christ should Islam be discarded. If you already believe there is a God, how could you choose atheism? The problem is choosing the wrong god, both in name and nature.You failed to support any claim of error in the Bible while bringing unretractible shame upon Muhammad by supposedly finding his name prophesied in the Bible. I'd suggest refraining from contending with Christians with knowledge of the Bible. But I would also suggest you listen to and consider evidences you are on the wrong track. By all means, stick to the scientific forums until prepared to contend without net loss.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 10-06-2002]

machamaddim in the old testament is an adjective .its also an adjective in the kuran .but silly moslems took it as a name of some false man.