Bible

The reply is that the verse still has to be read through the Bible's own linguistic and historical context, not through an imported Islamic semantic rule. The speaker argues that Greek and Arabic usage are not interchangeable and that the title can be read differently in the Christian textual world than in the Qur'anic one.

The reply is that son language can be used as a term of endearment, including in Arabic examples such as walid, and therefore not every use of 'son' implies a literal divine relation. The speaker says the Christian argument is collapsing different linguistic uses into one, as if every son-language example must mean the same thing.

The response is that Jeremiah 23:5-6 speaks about a righteous branch from David who will reign as king, but the speaker says it does not fit Jesus because the promised conditions about Judah and Israel dwelling safely were not fulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. He also says that Jewish readers themselves treat the passage as messianic prophecy without agreeing that it points to Jesus.

The rebuttal is that the verse speaks about a Messiah and not explicitly about Jesus, and even if Jesus is the Messiah, the description still does not match the historical circumstances of Jesus' ministry. The speaker ends this section by saying the text is being over-read to force a conclusion it does not actually state.

The reply is that a claim to be Almighty does not automatically settle the question of divinity, and that manuscript issues matter when deciding what the Bible actually says. The speaker says the longer reading is not found in the early manuscripts, so the argument is leaning on a text-critical claim rather than a straightforward Bible verse.

The second prompt is stated directly: the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. The speaker frames this by first citing Surah 7:157, which says the unlettered prophet's description is found in the Torah and Gospel, and then pressing whether the Bible itself contains that name clearly.

The speaker argues that Song of Solomon 5:16 contains a form that can be read as Muhammad in the Hebrew text, and he insists that the translation 'altogether lovely' is masking the name. He then asks the other side to read the verse with Muhammad inserted to show what he believes is the underlying name.

The response is that the presence of scribal errors and later additions means the Bible cannot be treated as the unquestioned authority in this debate. The Qur'an is presented as the Muhayman, the criterion over earlier revelation, and the speaker says that if a text is demonstrably altered, later claims from that text do not override the Qur'an.

The first prompt is: the Prophet Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Uthman opens by establishing that the Song of Solomon is not merely a love song. The Orthodox annotated Bible and the Oxford New Annotated Bible both describe it as prophetic speech involving mystical symbolism and highly figurative language. For centuries, critical biblical scholars understood the Song of Solomon as pointing to a coming prophetic figure — the allegory showing the relationship between God and who He would send to guide Israel and the people. That prophetic character is the context for the name appearing in Song of Solomon 5:16.

Uthman presents a printout from the Hebrew-English lexicon (with Strong numbers), showing that the word in Song of Solomon 5:16 is Muhammadim. The lexicon — written entirely by Christian scholars — lists the root as Hamida, which is the same Arabic root from which the name Muhammad is derived. This is not a Muslim source: it is a standard scholarly Christian reference used for Bible translation. The entry explicitly shows the Arabic cognate Hamida beside the Hebrew entry for Muhammadim, and lists Muhammad as a related noun. The lexicon even references the Arabic origin of the word.

Isaiah 42 declares: I will put my spirit upon him, my beloved servant — he will be a light to the Gentiles. The passage frames this not as a mission primarily to Israel but to the wider world. Uthman notes this is sometimes claimed to refer to Jesus or John the Baptist. But the passage immediately continues to specify the Arabian context — the people of Kedar and the inhabitants of Sela — which are explicitly Arabian locations, not areas near Jerusalem or Palestine.

Isaiah 42:19 reads: who is blind but my servant, or deaf but my messenger whom I sent — who is blind as he who was perfect? The Hebrew word rendered as perfect in this verse is Mushallam. Uthman presents the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, which shows that Mushallam carries the same root as the Arabic verb Aslama — the very root of the word Muslim. The passage therefore not only mentions Muhammadim (from Song of Solomon 5:16) but in Isaiah 42 also calls the coming prophet Mushallam (Muslim) — in the same passage that identifies the celebrating people as the Arabs of Kedar (Mecca) and Sal'a (Medina).

Uthman announces the second prompt: I do not believe Jesus is God himself according to the Bible.

Uthman cites John 17:20-21, where Jesus prays for his disciples: I do not pray for these alone, but for those who will believe in me through their word, that they all may be one as you, Father, are in me and I in you — that they may be one in us. If I and the Father are one means Jesus is God (in the sense of sharing divine nature), then by the same logic all believers who are described as being one in the same way would also be God. The student concedes the point: we are not God. Uthman then presses: if the same word one is used for believers and for Jesus, it cannot establish divine identity for Jesus specifically.

Uthman quotes John 17:3 — the words of Jesus himself in the red-letter text: This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. In a single sentence Jesus distinguishes God (whom he addresses as the only true God) from himself (Jesus Christ, whom you have sent). God is the sender; Jesus is the one sent. Jesus also continuously calls God my God throughout the Bible — including post-resurrection. This language is that of a prophet in relationship with God, not that of a being claiming to be God.

Uthman cites Revelation 3:12 — a post-resurrection statement attributed to Jesus: He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Even after the resurrection and glorification, Jesus still refers to God as my God. If Jesus were God himself, the statement my God becomes incoherent — you do not call yourself your own God. The student in the chair is unable to answer this point and is voted out. Uthman summarizes: Jesus calling God my God, repeatedly throughout the Bible and even post-resurrection, demonstrates he is not God but a servant and prophet of God.

Uthman cites multiple New Testament uses of ego imai by non-divine beings. In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel says: I am Gabriel, ego imai, who stands before God and I am sent to speak to you. In John 9, the blind man healed by Jesus uses ego imai when asked if he is the man who was healed — I am. Paul uses ego imai. Rabbis use it. In Matthew, a rabbi says I am the rabbi using ego imai. Uthman lists at least six or seven examples of ego imai used by people other than God. If ego imai is a secret divine name from Exodus, then the New Testament is full of gods — Gabriel, the blind man, Paul, rabbis. The form is a common Greek first-person expression meaning I am, not an exclusive divine claim.

Uthman explains that in Islamic theology, the prophethood of every prophet was decreed and established before the creation of the world. There is even a Hadith where Adam saw the names and qualities of all his descendants, including prophets like David. So Jesus saying before Abraham was, I existed — referring to his prophethood being established before Abraham's time on earth — is entirely consistent with the prophetic tradition. The Jews who heard it were likely confused about the age question: how could this thirty-year-old man say he existed in the time of Abraham? They were reacting to what seemed like an absurd age claim, not necessarily to a claim of divine pre-existence.

Uthman quotes Mark 13:32 (also in Matthew 24:36): of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. God is all-knowing at all times — this is a fundamental divine attribute. But here Jesus himself says he does not know the hour. If Jesus is God and God is all-knowing, then Jesus must know the hour. The verse explicitly says the Son does not know. Therefore, either Jesus is not God, or the verse is false.

Uthman presses the logical contradiction: God is all-knowing at all times. This is not a negotiable attribute — it is part of what makes God, God. Just as God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19 states God is not a man that he should lie), God cannot fail to know something. He then specifically isolates the ability-to-know distinction the Catholic used: "I did not ask you if you had the ability to. That is like me saying I have the ability to work out and lift 350 pounds, but I cannot." The student replies: "Or you are just not doing it right now." Uthman confirms: exactly — so at that moment Jesus genuinely did not know the hour. He then returns to the divine attribute: God is all-knowing at ALL times. A being that does not know something at any moment, for any reason, cannot be God. The same argument applies to death: God cannot die, but Christians say Jesus died. Either Jesus is God (and these events did not truly happen) or Jesus died and was not God.

Uthman reaches the crux of the argument: the Catholic said Jesus limited himself and therefore did not know the hour. But God is all-knowing at all times — this is the essence of God. To say God limited his omniscience is to say God stopped being all-knowing. But if God stopped being all-knowing, he stopped being God. You cannot have a being who is God and simultaneously not know something — regardless of the reason. The same logic applies to death: God cannot die. If Jesus died on the cross, the dying entity cannot have been God. The Catholic responds by saying God is a complex entity, but Uthman points out that complexity does not resolve a logical contradiction.

Uthman announces the third prompt: I believe Jesus is a prophet of God and a servant of God in accordance with the Bible.

Uthman asks: so you are saying God sent Jesus? The student says yes. Uthman responds: then that negates him being God, because he is sent by God. If God himself came, he would not say he is a messenger of God — he would say I am God. When you say God sent Jesus, you are saying a sender (God) dispatched a recipient (Jesus). These are two distinct entities. God sent God is a statement that only makes sense if you already believe in two separate divine persons — which is a Trinitarian presupposition, not a biblical inference. The student transitions to asking about Islamic theology of creation rather than pressing the point.

Uthman gives a concrete analogy: if he wants to send a message to someone, he sends a person — say, Ameen — as his messenger. Ameen would say I am a messenger of Uthman. But if Uthman himself came to deliver the message, he would not say I am a messenger of Uthman — he would say I am Uthman and here is my message. The fact that Jesus is described throughout the Bible as a prophet of God, a messenger of God, and a servant of God places him in the role of the sent one, not the sender. If Jesus were God himself, these descriptions would be self-defeating. God does not send himself and then describe the sent one as his own servant.

Uthman argues that being the vehicle of God, the message of God, and the messenger of God does not make you God — it makes you the most excellent of God's messengers. Moses was a messenger of God, the vehicle for God's revelation, and the channel of the message — but Moses was not God. If God himself came to earth, he would not be described as a messenger OF God. He would simply be God. The word of belongs to a possessive relationship: you can only be the messenger of someone else. A being cannot simultaneously be God and be a messenger sent from God — these are logically exclusive categories. Jesus being the most complete messenger of God in the Christian framework still places him as a distinct being from God.

Uthman quotes John 14:28, a statement by Jesus: the Father is greater than I. This verse directly contradicts the claim that all three persons are co-equal. If the Father is greater than the Son, they are not equal. The participant confirms that Jesus does say this — it is in the text. Uthman notes that Jesus says this repeatedly in the Bible, not just once, and he never qualifies the statement as applying only to his human nature.

Uthman presses: Jesus does not say the Father is greater than my human nature — he says the Father is greater than I. The statement applies to Jesus as a whole person, not to one nature in isolation. If Jesus is one person and that person says the Father is greater than I, then the Father is greater than that person. You cannot split the statement across natures when Jesus himself does not make that distinction in the text.

Uthman quotes Acts 3:13: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — the God of our fathers — glorified his servant Jesus. The verse uses the phrase his servant Jesus. The God of Abraham is glorifying someone he calls his servant. The participant who just agreed that God cannot be a servant of anybody is now confronted with the Bible calling Jesus God's servant. Since God cannot be a servant but the Bible calls Jesus God's servant, Jesus cannot be God. The participant agrees: Jesus being a servant of God means he is not God.

Uthman asks: would you agree that God cannot be lower than the angels? The participant answers yes, absolutely. Uthman then cites Hebrews 2:7-9, which states that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. If God cannot be lower than the angels, and Jesus was made lower than the angels, then Jesus cannot be God. The participant agrees with both premises and both conclusions: Jesus as described in Hebrews is below God and below the angels, making him a prophet and a servant — not God. Uthman adds that in Islamic belief, pious people and prophets are even higher in status than the angels. The participant laughs and says they are in agreement on this. He then mentions he is finding it increasingly difficult to believe in God at all due to his physics studies — and is voted out.

When the topic of whether God can lie comes up, Robin challenges the claim by invoking Job: "Somebody said that God never lied, and I thought immediately about Job. God told Job some whoppers just to check him out." Uthman acknowledges the exchange and responds with Numbers 23:19: God is not a man that he should lie. This is a direct biblical statement distinguishing the divine nature from human fallibility. Robin says she does not take the Bible literally anyway, so the verse carries limited force for her. Uthman uses it to establish the broader point: if there are things God categorically does not do (such as lie), then omniscience is another such essential attribute — and a being that does not know something at any moment cannot be God.

Uthman announces the fourth prompt: I do not believe the Bible is one hundred percent preserved words of God. I believe there are many instances where you will find clear contradictions that were made by scribal errors and others that were inserted by different people over time. This prompt sets up the final stretch of debate where Uthman presents specific documented examples of additions, fabrications, and contradictions acknowledged by Christian biblical scholars themselves.

Uthman explains the Islamic concept: the Quran is described as the Muhayman — the guardian, the criterion, and the judge over previous scriptures. He uses the analogy of two rulers: one whose markings are reliable and one whose markings are questionable. You would not throw the imperfect ruler away — you would check it against the gold standard ruler to find where it is right and where it has deviated. Whatever in the Bible aligns with the Quran, Uthman accepts. Whatever contradicts the Quran — like David committing adultery with Bathsheba, killing her husband, or Lot getting drunk and sleeping with his daughters — Uthman rejects as human additions, because these actions are incompatible with the character of a righteous prophet of God.

Uthman cites the Quranic principle: We did not send a messenger except in the language of his people. Jesus spoke Aramaic — that is agreed by scholars. Yet the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are in Koine Greek. There are no Aramaic originals of the four Gospels. The Gospels as we have them are already translations (or at best transliterations) of what Jesus said — and as such they are removed by at least one step from the words Jesus himself spoke. This contrasts with the Quran, which is in Arabic as the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, delivered it.

Uthman presents the NET Bible — translated by twenty-five top biblical scholars — and shows specific textual footnotes. In Matthew, there is a passage about prayer and fasting that the NET footnotes state is not found in the earliest manuscripts — it was added later and is almost certainly not original. In Mark 16:9-20, the longer ending of Mark — describing the resurrection appearances and signs of believers — is documented as not appearing in any early manuscripts. The NET note states this longer ending was almost certainly not original and was added by a later copyist. Metzger's work on textual criticism confirms these additions.

1 John 5:7 is the clearest Trinitarian verse in the Bible: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. This is the Johannine Comma. Uthman notes that when he was attending church, this was the verse consistently cited as the most explicit proof of the Trinity. But if you look at the textual research, this verse does not appear in any manuscript until the fourteenth century. It is absent from all early Greek manuscripts, from all early church citations, and from the writings of the early church fathers — even those who were arguing extensively for Trinitarian doctrine and who would surely have used it if it existed. The scholarly conclusion is that the Johannine Comma was fabricated and inserted into the text to support a theology that was already held.

Uthman shows a written comparison of the genealogies side by side. Matthew 1:16 says Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the son of Heli. Two different fathers for Joseph — Jacob versus Heli. Furthermore, from David onward, Matthew traces the line through Solomon (David's son) while Luke traces it through Nathan (a different son of David). These two lines diverge completely for dozens of generations. This is a credo issue: Jesus's connection to King David through the lineage of Joseph was essential to establishing him as the Messiah in Jewish tradition. If the genealogies contradict, the Messianic credential itself is in dispute. The MacArthur Study Bible acknowledges this as a copyist error.

Uthman presents a book of scanned manuscripts from the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to the present generation. The manuscripts show letter by letter, word by word, the same text — identical across fourteen centuries. Unlike the Bible, which has no manuscripts from the time of Jesus (even credit-card-size scraps date to 70-90 AD, and the earliest semi-complete codices are third or fourth century), the Quran has documented manuscript evidence from the first generation. Furthermore, the methods of recitation — including even the precise pronunciation and elongation of individual letters — are proven through continuous chains of transmission (isnad) going back to the Prophet himself.

Uthman notes that the Codex Sinaiticus — regarded as the first semi-complete Bible, dated to the fourth century — contains books that are not in the modern biblical canon. This means that what counts as the Bible was still being determined in the fourth century, and some of the books that were included in the earliest complete manuscript are no longer considered scripture. This is further evidence that the Bible as it exists today is not the same text that was recognized as authoritative in the earliest centuries of Christianity.

Uthman shows the NET Bible (twenty-five top biblical scholars) and reads directly from the footnotes. In Matthew, a verse about prayer and fasting is noted as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts — it was added later and is almost certainly not original. In Mark 16:9-20 — the longer ending of Mark, which contains resurrection appearances and the signs of believers including handling snakes and speaking in tongues — the NET Bible note states this passage does not appear in any early manuscript of Mark and was almost certainly not part of the original text. Metzger's textual criticism work confirms these findings. These are not marginal issues: the Mark 16 passage is cited regularly in charismatic and Pentecostal contexts.

1 John 5:7 — in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one — is the clearest and most explicit Trinitarian verse in the Bible. It is the verse churches use to directly prove the Trinity. Uthman shows that looking at the actual manuscript research, this verse does not appear in any manuscript until the fourteenth century. It is absent from all early Greek manuscripts and from the quotations of all early church fathers, including those who were writing extensively in defense of Trinitarian theology and who would have used this verse if it existed. The scholarly conclusion is that the Johannine Comma was not part of the original text — it was inserted to support a theological position. This is not a marginal verse: it is the cornerstone Trinitarian proof text, and it is a later fabrication.

Uthman presents written genealogy comparisons. Matthew 1:16 states that Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Luke 3:23 states that Joseph was the son of Heli. These are two different people claiming to be the father of Joseph. Furthermore, from David onward, Matthew goes through Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7) while Luke goes through Nathan (Luke 3:31) — two entirely different sons of David, producing completely different lineages for dozens of generations. Connecting the genealogy to the Old Testament compounds the problem: when aligned against 1 Chronicles, the father-son relationships are inverted — what Matthew and Luke list as fathers and sons appear as the opposite in 1 Chronicles. The number of generations also differs between Matthew and Luke: one gives sixteen, the other twenty-six. These are not minor variations — the genealogy is a credo issue because Jesus being a descendant of David was essential to the Messianic claim.

Uthman shows the MacArthur Study Bible — published by an evangelical Christian and one of the most widely used conservative study Bibles. He reads from a footnote that explicitly says seven years of famine is a clear error, almost certainly a copyist error — the correct reading should be three years. MacArthur — an evangelical Christian, not a liberal theologian or an Islamic scholar — acknowledges human copyist errors in the biblical text. A humorous moment follows: the participant notices a note in the MacArthur Bible that appears to reference an N-word. Uthman shows the entry: it is from the Acts passage about Simon who was called Niger (Latin for black), noting he may have been a dark-skinned man, an African. MacArthur's own note uses the word. Uthman emphasizes: this is MacArthur's evangelical Study Bible — not a Muslim source. When even conservative evangelical scholarship admits to copyist errors in the text itself, the claim that the Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God is undermined from within.

Uthman responds that even the red-letter verses in the New Testament cannot be authenticated as the actual words of Jesus. Paul's epistles — a large portion of the New Testament — are not direct quotes from Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are named after people but were not authored by them: the books themselves contain no authorship attribution, and the names were applied by tradition centuries later. The earliest semi-complete Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century) contains books that are not in the modern canon, meaning the canon itself was still undetermined in the fourth century. The words of Jesus — if preserved — are not verifiably the words in these documents. In contrast, the Quran can be shown to be the words of the Prophet through documented chains of transmission (isnad) going back to the Prophet himself, covering both the text and the precise method of its recitation.

Uthman shows a book of scanned Quranic manuscripts from the time of the Prophet to the present, demonstrating letter-by-letter, word-by-word identity across fourteen centuries. He explains that the preservation of the Quran is not only textual but methodological: even the method of recitation — every elongation, every pause, every precise pronunciation — must be proven through a continuous chain of teachers going back to the Prophet himself. He gives the example of two recitation variants for one verse (Maliki/Maliki Yawm al-Din): both variants are documented through separate authenticated chains. This level of chain-of-custody verification does not exist for any part of the Bible. Uthman concludes: I believe in the words of Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad — peace be upon all of them. But if you ask me what the preserved words actually are, I can prove it is the Quran.

As Muslims, we believe Moses received the Torah from God and Jesus received the Injil (Gospel). However, the question is whether what exists today as the Bible is that same preserved revelation. If the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contain internal contradictions — because God does not contradict Himself. I will present clear contradictions from within the Bible itself, using its own text, to demonstrate that what we have today has been altered by human hands.

1 Samuel 31:4 states that Saul 'took a sword and fell upon it' — he committed suicide. His armour bearer saw that Saul was dead and fell on his own sword as well (1 Samuel 31:5). The text is explicit: Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. This is the first account.

In 2 Samuel 1:6-10, an Amalekite comes to David and says he found Saul leaning on his spear, still alive, and Saul asked the Amalekite to kill him. The Amalekite says: 'So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen.' He then takes Saul's crown and bracelet and brings them to David. This is a completely different account — Saul did not die by his own sword, but was killed by an Amalekite at his own request.

Yes. 2 Samuel 21:12 states that 'the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.' This is a third version: Saul was killed by the Philistines. So we now have three contradictory accounts in the same Bible: (1) Saul committed suicide by falling on his sword, (2) an Amalekite killed Saul at his request, and (3) the Philistines struck him down. These cannot all be true simultaneously.

No. The text never says the Amalekite lied. You are inserting that interpretation because you need to resolve the contradiction. But let's look at what David actually says in response. 2 Samuel 1:16 — David tells the Amalekite: 'Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I slew the anointed of the Lord.' David uses the word 'testified' — not 'lied.' Testimony is a statement of truth. David then executes the Amalekite based on his testimony. If the Amalekite was lying, David executed an innocent man based on a lie — which contradicts the biblical portrayal of David as a just king.

You still haven't addressed 2 Samuel 21:12, which attributes Saul's death to the Philistines. Even if you dismiss the Amalekite's account, you still have two contradictions: Saul killed himself (1 Samuel 31:4) versus the Philistines killed him (2 Samuel 21:12). The 'Amalekite was lying' argument doesn't resolve the problem — it only reduces three contradictions to two. And even that argument has no scriptural basis.

That's eisegesis — reading your interpretation into the text. 2 Samuel 21:12 uses the same Hebrew verb for 'slew' that is used elsewhere for direct killing. If someone dies by suicide during a war, you don't say the enemy 'slew' them. The text is making a factual claim about who killed Saul, and it contradicts the other two accounts. You're forced to reinterpret clear statements because they contradict each other — which is exactly my point. If this were truly the Word of God, preserved perfectly, these contradictions would not exist.

2 Kings 8:26 states: 'Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.' Now compare this to 2 Chronicles 22:2: 'Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.' Same king, same mother, same grandfather, same one-year reign in Jerusalem — but one says 22 and the other says 42. This is not a matter of interpretation — it's a 20-year numerical discrepancy.

No. The Hebrew wording in both verses is identical. 2 Kings 8:26 says 'ben esrim u-shtayim shanah Achazyahu be-malko' — 'a son of twenty-two years was Ahaziah when he reigned.' 2 Chronicles 22:2 uses the same grammatical construction: 'ben arba'im u-shtayim shanah Achazyahu be-malko' — 'a son of forty-two years was Ahaziah when he reigned.' Both use 'ben X shanah' — son of X years — which is the standard Hebrew expression for personal age. If 42 meant dynastic years, the grammar would need to be different. You're reading a meaning into the text that the Hebrew does not support.

Yes. The MacArthur Study Bible — a major evangelical Christian study Bible — acknowledges this as a copyist error. The footnote states that the correct reading should be 22, and that 42 is an error introduced during copying. The NIV translation actually changed the number from 42 to 22 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to harmonize the texts. So Christian scholars themselves admit this is an error — a human mistake in the text. If even your own scholars say it's a copyist error, then you've conceded that the Bible as we have it today contains human errors, which means it is not a perfectly preserved Word of God.

That's exactly the point. As Muslims, we don't say the original Torah or the original Gospel were not from God — we say they were. But we say the text has been changed over time by human hands. You just admitted that copyist errors exist. Once you concede that, you've conceded my entire argument: the Bible as it exists today is not identical to what was originally revealed. The question is not whether the 'message' survived — the question is whether the text is the unchanged Word of God. And the answer, by your own scholars' admission, is no.

Matthew 1:16 says 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.' Luke 3:23 says 'Joseph, which was the son of Heli.' So who is Joseph's father — Jacob or Heli? These are two different names, two different people, and two different genealogical lines. This is a direct contradiction between the two gospels on the most basic genealogical fact about Jesus's legal father.

Even if we accept the Levirate marriage argument for one generation, the entire genealogies diverge completely. From David onward, Matthew goes through Solomon while Luke goes through Nathan — two entirely different sons of David, producing two entirely different lineages for dozens of generations. You can't explain every single generation with Levirate marriage. And even if both lines are valid, they should converge at some point besides David and Abraham — but they don't. They list completely different ancestors for almost every generation.

Both Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 list Salathiel as the father of Zerubbabel — this is one of the few points where they appear to agree. But here's the problem: 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 gives a completely different account. According to 1 Chronicles, Salathiel (Shealtiel) is a son of Jeconiah, and Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah — Salathiel's brother — not of Salathiel himself. So according to the Old Testament's own genealogy, Zerubbabel's father is Pedaiah, not Salathiel. Both Matthew and Luke are wrong on this point according to 1 Chronicles.

Tazaryach argued that Matthew gives the biological/physical line and Luke gives the legal line — one through actual parentage, one through Levirate law. He specifically claimed Luke goes 'line by line' through the legal succession. But if Luke's genealogy is the precise legal record, how does it make the same error as Matthew regarding Zerubbabel's father? Both gospels say 'Salathiel begot Zerubbabel,' yet 1 Chronicles says Pedaiah begot Zerubbabel. If Luke was truly recording the exact legal line, it should match 1 Chronicles — the very source of the Old Testament genealogical records. Instead, it makes the same mistake as Matthew, which undermines the entire two-line explanation.

Here is a clear summary of the contradictions: 1. Joseph's father: Matthew says Jacob (Matthew 1:16), Luke says Heli (Luke 3:23). 2. Line from David: Matthew traces the lineage through Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), Luke traces through Nathan (Luke 3:31) — two different sons of David, creating entirely different lineages. 3. Zerubbabel's father: Matthew says Salathiel (Matthew 1:12), Luke says Salathiel (Luke 3:27), but 1 Chronicles 3:19 says Pedaiah — Salathiel's brother. Three different passages, three sets of contradictions. The Levirate marriage theory explains at most one generation (Jacob/Heli), says nothing about Solomon vs Nathan, and fails entirely for Zerubbabel/Pedaiah. These are irreconcilable within the text itself.

Let's apply the same standard to the Bible. Genesis 25:20 states that Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah. Now, Rashi — the most authoritative Jewish commentator on the Torah, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105 CE) — provides a detailed chronological calculation in his commentary on Genesis 25:20. Using the timeline established in Genesis 22 and Genesis 23, Rashi calculates that Rebekah was born when Isaac was 37 years old — the same event timeline as the Binding of Isaac (Aqedah) and Sarah's death at age 127 (Genesis 23:1). Since Isaac married at 40 (Genesis 25:20), and Rebekah was born when Isaac was 37, Rashi concludes that Rebekah was THREE YEARS OLD when Isaac married her.

In Jewish law derived from the Talmud and rabbinic tradition, the age of three is explicitly discussed as the age at which a girl is considered fit for marriage (kiddushin). This is not a fringe opinion — it is discussed in mainstream Jewish legal works. Rashi's calculation that Rebekah was three when she married Isaac is consistent with this legal framework. The point is that if you want to criticise the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ for Aisha's age — which, as I showed, is not even from the Prophet ﷺ directly and varies between 6 and 7 — then you need to address why your own most authoritative commentator says a three-year-old was married in the Torah.

Genesis 24:16 says Rebekah was a 'virgin; neither had any man known her.' It describes her at a well, carrying a pitcher. You argue a three-year-old can't do this. But the text doesn't state her age — so what age do YOU say she was? Give me a biblical verse that states Rebekah's age at marriage. You can't — because there isn't one. Rashi calculated it from the biblical timeline. You reject his calculation but have no alternative age from scripture. Meanwhile, Genesis 25:20 clearly states Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah, and the chronological events of Genesis 22-23 (Binding of Isaac, Abraham's notification of Rebekah's birth, Sarah's death at 127) are right there in the text. Rashi didn't invent the timeline — he calculated from it.

Numbers 31:17-18 records Moses commanding: 'Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.' The virgin girls — 'women children' in the KJV — were kept alive for the Israelite soldiers. The text does not specify their age, but describes them as children who had not known a man. Additionally, Judges 21:10-12 records the Israelites taking 400 young virgins from Jabesh-Gilead for the Benjamites who needed wives. These passages demonstrate that taking young virgins — including through warfare — was an accepted practice in the Old Testament, commanded or sanctioned by biblical figures.

You just said you only accept the Bible — not commentators, not extra-biblical sources. You rejected Rashi and the Protoevangelium. But the hadith about Aisha's age is the Islamic equivalent of what you just rejected — it's not in our scripture (the Quran), and it's not even a direct statement of the Prophet ﷺ. By your own standard — 'only scripture counts' — you have no basis to attack Islam on Aisha's age, because it is not in our scripture. You've refuted your own argument. Furthermore, the Bible itself does not give Rebekah's age, so you have no idea how old she was — you just know Isaac was 40 (Genesis 25:20). And Numbers 31:17-18 IS in your Bible — that's not a commentary or an extra-biblical source. Moses commanding soldiers to keep virgin children for themselves is right there in your scripture.

Ezekiel 16:4-8 is a passage where God uses a metaphor describing Jerusalem as a girl whom He found as a newborn, raised her, and when she 'came to the age of love' — described as the time her 'breasts were formed and hair had grown' — He spread His garment over her (a marriage metaphor). The description of physical development is that of a very young girl reaching early puberty. This is God Himself using the imagery of marrying a girl who has just reached physical maturity — which in that era meant 11 to 13 years old. The passage reinforces that early marriage at the onset of puberty was the accepted norm in the biblical worldview.

We have examined the death of King Saul — three contradictory accounts within the same Bible. We looked at the age of King Ahaziah — 22 in one book, 42 in another, with your own scholars admitting it's a copyist error. We examined the genealogy of Jesus — Joseph has two different fathers, the line goes through two different sons of David, and Zerubbabel's father contradicts 1 Chronicles. These are not matters of interpretation or translation — they are factual contradictions within the text itself. If the Bible were the perfectly preserved Word of God, these contradictions would not exist. As Muslims, we honour the original Torah and Gospel as divine revelation — but the evidence shows that what exists today has been altered by human hands. The Quran, by contrast, has been preserved letter-for-letter since its revelation, verified by an unbroken chain of memorization (hifz) spanning 1400 years.