Friday, July 31, 2026

CAN JESUS BE GOD AND MAN AT THE SAME TIME?

CAN JESUS BE GOD AND MAN AT THE SAME TIME?

A Biblical and Logical Examination of the Incarnation

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most profound doctrines of historic Christianity is the Incarnation:

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man in one Person.

To some critics, this appears contradictory. They argue that Jesus cannot possess divine and human attributes simultaneously. However, does the Bible actually teach a contradiction? Or does it reveal a mystery that remains logically coherent when properly understood?

This article examines the biblical evidence and the logical foundation of Christ's dual nature.


WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH?

Scripture teaches two equally important truths.

Jesus is Fully God

The Bible repeatedly affirms Christ's deity.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
John 1:14

Jesus is called:

  • God (John 20:28)

  • The Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)

  • The First and the Last (Revelation 1:17–18)

  • The Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17)

Paul writes,

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Colossians 2:9


Jesus is Fully Human

The Bible also teaches His genuine humanity.

He was:

  • Born of a woman (Galatians 4:4)

  • Hungry (Matthew 4:2)

  • Thirsty (John 19:28)

  • Tired (John 4:6)

  • Tempted (Hebrews 4:15)

  • Able to suffer and die (Philippians 2:8)

The Apostle Paul calls Him

"the man Christ Jesus."
1 Timothy 2:5

Therefore, Scripture does not present a half-God and half-man.

Rather,

Jesus is fully divine and fully human.


DOES THIS VIOLATE LOGIC?

Critics often appeal to the Law of Non-Contradiction:

A thing cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect.

Christians completely agree.

The Incarnation does not claim that Jesus is both God and not God.

Nor does it claim He is both human and not human.

Instead, it states something different:

Jesus possesses two distinct natures united in one Person.

There is no logical contradiction because the different attributes belong to different natures.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERSON AND NATURE

One of the greatest misunderstandings in this discussion is confusing person with nature.

A person answers the question:

Who is He?

A nature answers the question:

What is He?

Jesus is:

One Person

with

Two complete natures.

His divine nature never became human.

His human nature never became divine.

Neither nature was mixed or altered.

This is precisely what the early Church affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451).


WHAT ABOUT MARK 13:32?

Critics often ask:

"But concerning that day or hour no one knows... not even the Son."
Mark 13:32

Does this prove Jesus is not God?

No.

Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus voluntarily accepted the limitations of genuine human life.

Philippians explains this beautifully:

"Who, being in the form of God... emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant."
Philippians 2:6–8

This "emptying" (Greek: kenosis) does not mean Christ ceased to be God.

Rather, He voluntarily chose not to exercise certain divine privileges independently while accomplishing the Father's redemptive mission.

His human mind experienced authentic human development.

Luke writes:

"Jesus increased in wisdom and stature."
Luke 2:52

His divine nature remained omniscient, yet His human experience involved genuine human growth.

This is not contradiction.

It is the mystery of the Incarnation.


CAN ONE PERSON HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES?

Yes.

Even human beings demonstrate distinctions without contradiction.

A judge may simultaneously be:

  • a father,

  • a citizen,

  • and a judge.

Each relationship carries different responsibilities without producing multiple persons.

Likewise, Christ acts according to either His divine nature or His human nature while remaining one Person.


DID JESUS DIE?

Another objection says:

"God cannot die."

Christians agree.

God's divine nature is immortal.

Yet Jesus truly died.

How?

Because death occurred in His human nature.

His divine nature never ceased to exist.

Peter explains:

"Being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit."
1 Peter 3:18

The Person who died is the eternal Son, but death affected His human nature, not His divine essence.

DID JESUS NEED FOOD?

Yes.

His human body experienced hunger.

Matthew 4:2

Did His divine nature require food?

No.

Again, there is no contradiction because hunger belongs to humanity, not deity.


DID JESUS PRAY?

Yes.

Prayer demonstrates His perfect human dependence upon the Father.

As the Second Adam, Jesus lived the obedient human life that Adam failed to live.

His prayers reveal His genuine humanity—not a denial of His deity.


THE BIBLE PRESENTS BOTH TRUTHS TOGETHER

Notice how Scripture freely attributes both divine and human characteristics to Jesus.

He slept in the boat.

Yet He commanded the storm.

(Mark 4:38–39)

He became hungry.

Yet He fed five thousand.

(Matthew 14)

He wept at Lazarus' tomb.

Yet He raised Lazarus from the dead.

(John 11)

He died on the cross.

Yet He declared,

"I am the resurrection and the life."
John 11:25

These are not contradictions.

They are the harmonious testimony of Scripture concerning the God-Man.


WHY THE INCARNATION MATTERS

Only a true man could represent humanity.

Hebrews 2:17

Only true God possesses infinite worth sufficient to redeem the world.

Hebrews 9:14

Therefore, salvation requires both.

As Athanasius famously stated,

"He became what we are so that we might become what He is by grace."


CONCLUSION

The Incarnation does not violate logic.

A contradiction would be claiming:

Jesus is God and not God.

Or:

Jesus is human and not human.

Christianity teaches neither.

Instead, Scripture reveals one divine Person possessing two complete natures—divine and human—without confusion, change, division, or separation.

This is not irrational.

It is a revealed mystery consistent with both biblical testimony and sound logic.

As John declares:

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory."
John 1:14

The eternal Son did not cease to be God when He became man.

Rather, He added humanity to Himself in order to accomplish the redemption of the world.

In Jesus Christ, deity and humanity meet perfectly—not in contradiction, but in the glorious mystery of God's saving plan.


Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?


Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?

A Theological Examination of the Qur'anic Accusation Against the Jews

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

Among the recurring polemical themes within the Qur'an is the repeated accusation that the Jewish people killed the prophets whom God sent to them. These statements appear in several passages and are presented as one of the principal reasons for God's judgment upon Israel. The Qur'an repeatedly declares that the Jews "killed the prophets unjustly," often addressing the Jewish communities living during Muhammad's lifetime as though they themselves had committed these ancient crimes.

This raises several important theological, historical, linguistic, and moral questions.

If modern Muslims rightly object whenever all Muslims are collectively blamed for the crimes committed by extremists, should the same standard not also be applied to the Jewish people? If it is unjust to accuse every Muslim of terrorism because some Muslims commit acts of violence, is it equally unjust to accuse the Jewish nation throughout history of murdering God's prophets because of the actions of certain individuals centuries earlier?

These questions deserve careful scholarly examination.

The Qur'anic Accusations

The Qur'an repeatedly states that the Jews killed God's prophets. These accusations appear in numerous passages, including:

  • Surah 2:61

  • Surah 2:87

  • Surah 2:91

  • Surah 3:21

  • Surah 3:112

  • Surah 3:181

  • Surah 3:183

  • Surah 4:155

  • Surah 5:70

Most of these verses speak generally of "the prophets" without identifying a single prophet by name.

For example, Surah 2:61 declares that God's wrath came upon Israel because "they killed the prophets without right."

Likewise, Surah 3:112 and Surah 4:155 repeat essentially the same accusation.

The cumulative impression left upon the reader is that Israel, as a nation, habitually murdered nearly every prophet God sent to them.

Yet remarkably, the Qur'an provides almost no historical evidence for this sweeping allegation.

Two Qualifying Verses

Only two passages moderate the general accusation by stating that Israel rejected some prophets while killing others.

Surah 2:87 states:

"Some you denied, and some you killed."

Similarly, Surah 5:70 declares:

"Some they called liars, and some they killed."

These verses acknowledge that not every prophet was killed.

Nevertheless, they still leave unanswered one crucial historical question:

Which prophets?

The Absence of Historical Evidence

One of the most striking features of these accusations is the complete absence of historical documentation.

The Qur'an never identifies the majority of these supposedly murdered prophets.

No names are supplied.

No historical setting is given.

No details of the alleged murders are provided.

Instead, the accusation is repeated numerous times without supporting historical evidence.

Such an approach would not normally satisfy the standards of historical investigation or judicial fairness.

Extraordinary accusations require substantial evidence.

The Qur'an offers virtually none.

Does the Bible Support These Claims?

The Old Testament records the persecution of many prophets.

Several prophets suffered imprisonment.

Others were beaten.

Some were threatened with death.

According to Jewish tradition, Isaiah was martyred during the reign of King Manasseh.

Zechariah son of Jehoiada was murdered in the Temple (2 Chronicles 24:20–22).

John the Baptist was later executed, although his execution was ordered by Herod Antipas rather than by the Jewish nation as a whole (Matthew 14:1–12).

Jesus Himself declared that Jerusalem had often rejected God's messengers (Matthew 23:37).

Therefore, Scripture certainly records that certain prophets were persecuted and even killed.

However, this differs significantly from accusing the Jewish people throughout history of collectively murdering "the prophets."

The biblical narrative consistently distinguishes between corrupt rulers, rebellious leaders, and the faithful remnant of Israel.

Individual Responsibility in Scripture

The Bible consistently teaches personal accountability before God.

Ezekiel declared:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." (Ezekiel 18:20)

Likewise, Deuteronomy 24:16 teaches:

"Each shall be put to death for his own sin."

This principle is reaffirmed throughout Scripture.

Individuals are judged for their own actions—not for crimes committed centuries before their birth.

The Qur'an's Own Principle

Interestingly, the Qur'an itself repeatedly teaches exactly the same principle.

Numerous passages state that no one bears another person's burden, including:

  • Surah 6:164

  • Surah 17:15

  • Surah 35:18

  • Surah 39:7

  • Surah 53:38

These verses clearly affirm individual moral responsibility.

If this principle is universally true, an obvious question emerges.

Why are Jewish communities living during Muhammad's lifetime repeatedly addressed as though they themselves had murdered prophets who lived hundreds or even thousands of years earlier?

This appears difficult to reconcile with the Qur'an's own ethical teaching regarding personal accountability.

A Linguistic Observation

Another interesting feature appears in Surah 2:87 and Surah 5:70.

Some Arabic grammarians have observed that the verbs describing the killing of prophets employ forms that have been understood by some interpreters as conveying an ongoing or vivid present sense rather than a simple historical past.

If this understanding is correct, the text rhetorically places Muhammad's contemporaries into the narrative of ancient Israel's rejection of God's messengers.

Whether interpreted as a rhetorical device or as a grammatical feature, the effect is the same: the audience is directly associated with the actions of earlier generations.

Such language raises further theological questions concerning collective responsibility.

The Case of Jesus

The Qur'an specifically addresses the death of Jesus in Surah 4:157–158.

It attributes to certain Jews the statement:

"We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah."

The Qur'an immediately denies this claim, insisting that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified but was instead raised to God.

From the perspective of historic Christianity, this presents two major difficulties.

First, the New Testament unanimously affirms that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Second, the overwhelming consensus of ancient historical sources—including non-Christian writers—recognizes the crucifixion as one of the best-attested events of the first century.

Thus, while the Qur'an repeatedly accuses the Jews of killing prophets, it simultaneously denies that Jesus, whom Christians confess as the Messiah, was actually killed.

The Case of Elijah

Surah 3:183 alludes to a prophet who brought an offering consumed by fire from heaven.

The description unmistakably recalls Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).

Yet Elijah was not murdered by Israel.

According to 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah was taken into heaven alive.

Consequently, if Surah 3:183 is understood to imply Elijah's death at Jewish hands, it conflicts with the biblical historical record.

Which Prophets Were Actually Killed?

The Qur'an mentions numerous prophets by name.

Among those associated with Israel are:

  • Moses

  • Aaron

  • David

  • Solomon

  • Elijah

  • Elisha

  • Jonah

  • Zechariah

  • John the Baptist

  • Jesus

Examining the biblical record reveals that very few of these prophets were actually killed.

Moses died naturally.

Aaron died naturally.

David died naturally.

Solomon died naturally.

Elijah was taken into heaven.

Elisha died naturally.

Jonah was not murdered.

John the Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas.

Jesus was crucified under Roman authority, though certain Jewish leaders participated in the events leading to His death.

Therefore, the historical evidence does not support the impression created by repeated generalized accusations that Israel systematically murdered God's prophets.

Theological and Ethical Reflections

The central issue is not whether some Israelites rejected or persecuted prophets.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament acknowledge that they did.

Rather, the issue concerns the scope of the accusation.

Should an entire nation across many centuries be held morally responsible for the crimes committed by particular individuals in previous generations?

Both biblical theology and numerous Qur'anic passages concerning personal responsibility would suggest otherwise.

Collective guilt contradicts the principle that every individual stands accountable before God for his or her own actions.

Conclusion

The repeated Qur'anic accusation that "the Jews killed the prophets" raises significant historical, linguistic, theological, and ethical questions.

While the Bible records isolated instances in which prophets were persecuted or killed, it does not support the sweeping impression that the Jewish nation as a whole consistently murdered God's messengers.

Furthermore, the Qur'an itself repeatedly teaches that no individual bears another person's burden.

Consequently, addressing later generations as though they personally committed the crimes of their ancestors appears difficult to harmonize with that principle.

Scholarly dialogue between Christians and Muslims should therefore examine these passages carefully, distinguishing between historical evidence, theological interpretation, and rhetorical language. Such discussion should be conducted with fairness, accuracy, and respect, avoiding collective condemnation of entire religious communities while remaining committed to historical and theological truth.

Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


The Qur'an's Portrayal of Solomon and the Communion of Jinn: A Theological Examination


QUR'ANIC DIFFICULTY:

The Qur'an's Portrayal of Solomon and the Communion of Jinn: A Theological Examination

A Scholarly Critique for Muslim-Christian Dialogue

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


Introduction

One of the most common criticisms advanced by Muslim apologists against the Holy Bible concerns its portrayal of God's prophets. It is frequently argued that the biblical narratives describe prophets committing serious moral failures, and that such portrayals demonstrate corruption within the biblical text. Muslims generally maintain that God's prophets were protected from major sins and therefore reject many biblical accounts concerning Noah, David, Solomon, Peter, and others.

The purpose of this study is not to revisit the biblical doctrine regarding the humanity of the prophets or defend why Scripture records both their virtues and failures. Rather, this article applies the same evaluative standard to the Qur'an itself.

If it is considered unacceptable for Scripture to portray God's prophets in ways that diminish their holiness, an important question must also be asked:

Does the Qur'an itself attribute actions to Solomon that raise serious theological concerns?

Specifically, does the Qur'an portray Solomon as exercising authority over jinn—identified in several Qur'anic passages as devils or satans—in a manner that appears inconsistent with the biblical understanding of God's relationship with evil spirits?


The Biblical Position Regarding Demons

The Holy Bible consistently presents demons as fallen spiritual beings opposed to God.

James writes:

"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder."
(James 2:19)

The Gospels further demonstrate that demons possess accurate theological knowledge.

Mark records:

"Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they fell down before Him and cried out, 'You are the Son of God.'"
(Mark 3:10–11)

Likewise, Luke writes:

"What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me."
(Luke 8:28–31)

Thus demons acknowledge:

  • the existence of the one true God,

  • the divine authority of Christ,

  • the certainty of their future judgment.

Yet despite this knowledge, Scripture never presents demons as servants of God's covenant people.


Scripture Forbids Fellowship with Demons

The Apostle Paul issues an unequivocal prohibition:

"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons."
(1 Corinthians 10:19–22)

Again he asks:

"What fellowship has light with darkness?... What accord has Christ with Belial?"
(2 Corinthians 6:14–16)

The theological principle is unmistakable.

God's servants do not cooperate with demonic powers.

There is no spiritual partnership between God's kingdom and Satan's kingdom.


Even the Demons Recognize This Principle

Matthew records the words of demons addressing Jesus:

"What have You to do with us, Son of God?"
(Matthew 8:28–29)

Their question reflects an obvious reality.

The kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness share no common mission.

The New Testament consistently depicts Christ casting demons out—not employing them.


The Qur'an's Description of Solomon

The discussion becomes particularly significant when examining the Qur'anic narrative concerning Solomon.

Surah 21 states:

"And of the Satans were some who dived for him and did other work besides."
(Surah 21:81–82)

Surah 27 records:

"An Ifrit from among the jinn said, 'I will bring it to you before you rise from your place.'"
(Surah 27:38–40)

Surah 34 likewise declares:

"And of the jinn were those who worked before him by permission of his Lord..."
(Surah 34:12–14)

These passages describe supernatural beings laboring under Solomon's authority.


Classical Islamic Interpretation

The classical Muslim commentator Ibn Kathir accepts these passages in their straightforward sense.

He explains that:

  • an enormous Ifrit offered to transport the Queen of Sheba's throne;

  • Solomon commanded these jinn;

  • Allah had subjected them to Solomon's authority;

  • they carried out construction projects;

  • they built structures,

  • fashioned statues,

  • made enormous basins,

  • and performed numerous other tasks.

According to Ibn Kathir, this miraculous authority served as evidence of Solomon's prophetic office.


The Central Theological Question

At this point an important theological question arises.

If the Bible consistently teaches that God's servants must never maintain fellowship with demonic powers, how should one understand the Qur'an's description of Solomon commanding jinn to perform his work?

Muslim scholars generally distinguish between ordinary jinn and devils (shayāṭīn), emphasizing that not all jinn are evil. Indeed, the Qur'an itself speaks of believing and unbelieving jinn (Surah 72). However, several Qur'anic passages—including Surah 21:82 in many translations—explicitly mention shayāṭīn ("satans") performing work for Solomon, while Surah 34 refers to jinn working by God's permission. This raises an interpretive question: How should these passages be harmonized, and what precisely is the nature of these beings under Solomon's authority?

If the beings described are truly evil spirits, the narrative appears difficult to reconcile with the biblical prohibition against cooperation with demonic powers.

If, however, they are understood as a distinct class of created beings acting under God's command and not in rebellion, then the Qur'anic account differs fundamentally from the biblical concept of demons. The discussion therefore turns not merely on translation, but on differing theological frameworks.


The Biblical Portrait of Solomon

The Old Testament attributes the construction of Solomon's kingdom and temple to human workers.

The historical books describe:

  • Israelite laborers,

  • skilled craftsmen,

  • stonecutters,

  • carpenters,

  • bronze workers,

  • officials,

  • and builders.

See:

  • 1 Kings 3–8

  • 1 Chronicles 22

  • 1 Chronicles 28–29

  • 2 Chronicles 2–7

No biblical text attributes the building of God's Temple to demons or evil spirits.

Instead, the Temple is portrayed as the work of God's covenant people under divine blessing.


A Further Qur'anic Difficulty

The Qur'an also states:

"They followed what the satans recited concerning Solomon's kingdom..."
(Surah 2:102)

The passage continues by denying that Solomon practiced sorcery while accusing the satans of teaching magic.

This raises another theological question.

If satans spread falsehood concerning Solomon, why does the Qur'an elsewhere associate Solomon's reign with supernatural beings identified in some passages as satans or shayāṭīn?

Does this distinction require a more nuanced interpretation than is often assumed?


The Question of Revelation

Another passage introduces an additional issue.

Surah 22:52 states:

"Never did We send a messenger or prophet before you but that Satan cast into his recitation..."

Although Islamic scholars interpret this verse in various ways, Christian critics have argued that it raises questions regarding prophetic revelation and the possibility of satanic interference.

From a Christian theological perspective, this naturally prompts discussion regarding the origin of narratives that appear inconsistent with earlier biblical revelation.


Conclusion

The central issue examined in this study is not whether Solomon possessed extraordinary authority.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an acknowledge that Solomon received unique wisdom and exceptional blessings from God.

Rather, the question concerns the nature of the beings placed under his authority and whether the Qur'anic portrayal is compatible with the biblical doctrine of holiness and separation from demonic powers.

For Christians, Scripture consistently teaches that God's servants confront evil spirits, rebuke them, and cast them out—they do not cooperate with them in fulfilling God's purposes. The Temple of the Lord is built through the obedience of God's people, not through fellowship with the powers of darkness.

Muslim exegetes generally respond that the jinn who served Solomon did so solely by Allah's command and that divine sovereignty over all creation removes any theological difficulty. This explanation deserves careful consideration within Islamic theology. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of biblical theology, the Qur'anic portrayal remains a significant point of discussion because it differs substantially from the biblical understanding of God's relationship with demonic powers.

Accordingly, this issue remains an important subject for respectful Muslim-Christian dialogue. Rather than caricaturing one another's beliefs, both communities should examine the relevant texts carefully, compare their theological assumptions honestly, and pursue truth through rigorous scholarship and mutual respect.

Soli Deo Gloria


Did "Abdullah" Exist Before Muhammad?


Did "Abdullah" Exist Before Muhammad?

A Historical and Theological Examination of the Name "Allah" in Pre-Islamic Arabia

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most intriguing questions in the study of early Islam concerns the origin and identity of Allah before the rise of Muhammad.

Islam teaches that Allah is the same God worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus. Muslims maintain that Muhammad restored the original monotheistic faith after centuries of corruption.

But history raises important questions.

If Muhammad's own father was named Abdullah ("Servant of Allah"), decades before Islam began, then several questions naturally follow:

  • Who was "Allah" before Muhammad?

  • How did pre-Islamic Arabs understand Allah?

  • Was Allah already worshipped alongside other gods?

  • If so, how was Allah different from Hubal, al-Lat, al-'Uzza, and Manat?

  • Did Islam redefine an existing Arabian deity, or did it restore belief in the Creator already acknowledged by many Arabs?

These are historical questions worthy of careful investigation.


Historical Fact: "Abdullah" Predates Islam

Islamic historical sources agree that Muhammad's father was named Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib.

This means the name Abdullah existed before Muhammad received the Qur'an.

Early Islamic historians such as:

  • Ibn Ishaq

  • Ibn Hisham

  • al-Tabari

all preserve this genealogy.

If Muhammad's father was already called "Servant of Allah," then the name Allah clearly did not originate with Islam.

The obvious historical question becomes:

Who was Allah before Islam?


The Qur'an Admits that the Pagans Already Knew Allah

Several Qur'anic passages acknowledge that the pagan Arabs already recognized Allah as Creator.

For example:

"If you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say, 'Allah.'"

(Qur'an 29:61)

See also:

  • Qur'an 31:25

  • Qur'an 39:38

  • Qur'an 43:9

  • Qur'an 43:87

These verses are significant.

Muhammad was not introducing the name Allah to the Meccans.

They already knew it.

The question is:

What did they mean by Allah?


Allah Among Many Gods?

The Qur'an repeatedly criticizes the Meccans for worshipping many deities.

Among them were:

  • Hubal

  • al-Lat

  • al-'Uzza

  • Manat

(Qur'an 53:19–20)

Yet these same people acknowledged Allah as Creator.

This produces an interesting historical picture.

The Meccans apparently believed in:

  • Allah

  • many lesser gods

  • intercessors

  • tribal deities

The Qur'an argues that these people wrongly associated partners with Allah (shirk), not that they had never heard of Allah.


If Allah Was Already Known, What Changed?

This raises another important historical question.

Did Muhammad introduce a completely new understanding of Allah?

Or did he reform an existing Arabian belief?

Islam answers that Muhammad restored the worship of the one true Creator.

Critics, however, ask whether Islam transformed an existing Arabian concept into a universal monotheistic theology.

This remains an important subject of scholarly discussion.


Was Allah Identical to Hubal?

Some popular writers claim Allah was simply Hubal.

Historical evidence, however, is more complex.

Early Islamic sources distinguish Hubal from Allah.

Hubal was an idol housed in the Kaaba.

Allah, by contrast, is presented in the Qur'an as the supreme Creator who has no image.

Classical Islamic tradition therefore does not identify Allah with Hubal.

Nevertheless, historians continue to debate how pre-Islamic Arabs understood the relationship between Allah and the many other deities they worshipped.


The Moon-God Theory

A common claim in modern apologetic debates is that Allah originated as a moon god.

This claim became popular in some twentieth-century Christian polemics.

However, the evidence for this theory is highly disputed.

Many historians of ancient Arabia argue that there is insufficient archaeological evidence to identify pre-Islamic Allah specifically as a moon deity.

While South Arabian religions included lunar deities, most specialists do not conclude that the Meccan Allah was simply a moon god.

This means the moon-god hypothesis should be presented cautiously and distinguished from established historical fact.


Questions for Muslim Scholars

These historical observations raise important questions for thoughtful dialogue.

  1. If Allah is the God of Abraham, why did pagan idolaters freely use His name?

  2. Why was Muhammad's father already named Abdullah before Islam?

  3. What exactly did pre-Islamic Arabs believe about Allah?

  4. Why does the Qur'an repeatedly state that idolaters acknowledged Allah as Creator while still practicing polytheism?

  5. If Allah was already known, what new revelation did Muhammad bring regarding His identity?

  6. How do Islamic historians explain Allah's place within pre-Islamic Arabian religion?

  7. Why does the Qur'an spend so much time correcting beliefs about Allah if His identity was already universally understood?

  8. How does Islam demonstrate historically—not merely theologically—that the Allah known in Mecca was identical with the God worshipped by Abraham?

  9. What independent historical evidence connects the religion of Abraham in Arabia with the religious practices at the Kaaba before Muhammad?

  10. Why do pre-Islamic inscriptions invoke the name "Allah" without reflecting the full monotheistic theology later taught in the Qur'an?


The Biblical Perspective

The Bible consistently identifies God through His covenant relationship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

God reveals His covenant name to Moses:

"I AM WHO I AM."

(Exodus 3:14)

The Old Testament also repeatedly emphasizes that Israel must reject the worship of surrounding nations and their gods.

From a Christian theological perspective, an important question remains:

How can one historically demonstrate that the Allah worshipped in seventh-century Mecca is the same covenant God revealed throughout the biblical narrative?

This question deserves careful historical and theological investigation.


Conclusion

There is no dispute that the name Allah existed before Islam.

The historical evidence—including Islamic sources themselves—confirms this.

The more significant question is not whether the name existed, but how it was understood.

Muslims answer that Allah was always the one true Creator whose worship had been corrupted by idolatry, and that Muhammad restored pure monotheism.

Critics ask whether the Qur'an reinterpreted an already existing Arabian conception of Allah and identified it with the God of Abraham.

These questions remain central to Christian-Muslim dialogue and should be explored with historical evidence, careful reasoning, and mutual respect.

Faith is strengthened not by avoiding difficult questions but by examining them honestly.

References

  • The Qur'an: 6:136, 29:61–63, 31:25, 39:38, 43:9, 43:87, 53:19–23.

  • Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah.

  • Ibn Hisham, Sirat Rasul Allah.

  • al-Tabari, History of Prophets and Kings.

  • F. E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.

  • G. R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam.

  • W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca.

  • Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam.


Did Adam Really Tower Over Dinosaurs?

Did Adam Really Tower Over Dinosaurs?

A Theological and Historical Examination of the Hadith Claim That Adam Was Sixty Cubits Tall

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most frequently discussed traditions in Islamic literature is the claim that Adam, the first man, was created sixty cubits tall. This statement appears in several authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) hadith collections and has generated considerable discussion among Muslim scholars, Christian apologists, historians, and scientists.

The question is not whether God could create a man of extraordinary height. From a biblical perspective, God is omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17; Luke 1:37). Rather, the issue is whether the specific historical claim that Adam measured approximately sixty cubits (about 90 feet or 27 meters) is supported by divine revelation, historical evidence, or scientific investigation.

For Christians, truth should never fear examination. Every historical and theological claim should be evaluated carefully.


The Hadith Claim

The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:

"Allah created Adam in His image, sixty cubits (about 90 feet) in height. When He created him, He said, 'Go and greet that group of angels...' ...Everyone who enters Paradise will be in the image and stature of Adam, sixty cubits tall. Since then, mankind has been decreasing in stature until now."

Sahih al-Bukhari 3326

This narration is regarded by many Muslims as authentic because it is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, one of Sunni Islam's most respected hadith collections.

If interpreted literally, Adam stood approximately 27 meters (90 feet) tall.


How Tall Is Ninety Feet?

To appreciate the magnitude of this claim:

  • A six-story building is approximately 60–70 feet tall.

  • A 90-foot human would be taller than many modern buildings.

  • The individual would exceed the height of numerous dinosaur species.

  • Such a body would possess enormous biological challenges involving skeletal support, blood circulation, muscle strength, and locomotion according to current scientific understanding.

The issue is therefore not merely one of unusual height but of an entirely different scale of biology.


Would Adam Have Been Taller Than Dinosaurs?

Popular illustrations often portray Adam towering over dinosaurs.

This comparison deserves careful clarification.

While Adam at 90 feet would indeed be taller than many dinosaur species—including Tyrannosaurus rex, which stood about 12–20 feet tall at the hips and approximately 40 feet long—it would not make Adam larger than every dinosaur.

Several sauropods, including Argentinosaurus, Patagotitan, and Dreadnoughtus, may have exceeded 100 feet in total length.

Thus, the more accurate statement is that a literal reading of the hadith portrays Adam as extraordinarily larger than virtually every known human and taller than many famous dinosaurs, though not necessarily larger than the very largest sauropods.

Accuracy strengthens apologetics.


The Biblical Account

The Bible introduces Adam without assigning him extraordinary physical dimensions.

Genesis simply records:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
(Genesis 1:27, KJV)

Likewise:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(Genesis 2:7, KJV)

The emphasis is theological rather than anatomical.

Scripture teaches:

  • Adam was uniquely created by God.

  • Adam bore God's image.

  • Adam served as mankind's representative.

  • Adam fell into sin.

Nowhere does Scripture describe Adam as ninety feet tall.


The Silence of Scripture

If Adam had possessed such extraordinary proportions, one might reasonably ask why Scripture remains entirely silent.

The Bible records measurements of numerous objects and individuals:

  • Noah's Ark

  • The Tabernacle

  • The Temple

  • Goliath

  • Og king of Bashan

Yet it never mentions Adam's height.

The silence is noteworthy because biblical authors often record remarkable physical characteristics when they are relevant to God's redemptive purposes.


Archaeological and Paleontological Evidence

No verified archaeological excavation has uncovered skeletal remains of ninety-foot human beings.

Likewise:

  • No authenticated fossils demonstrate the existence of humans approaching such dimensions.

  • Claims of "giant human skeletons" circulating on the internet have repeatedly been shown to involve hoaxes, manipulated images, or misidentified fossils.

This absence of evidence does not, by itself, disprove the hadith. Arguments from silence require caution.

However, extraordinary historical claims normally require correspondingly strong evidence.


Theological Implications

The issue extends beyond anthropology.

Christians recognize two fundamentally different sources of authority.

The Bible grounds doctrine in inspired Scripture.

Islam combines the Qur'an with hadith literature, assigning significant authority to sayings attributed to Muhammad.

Consequently, Christians may respectfully ask:

Should later traditions be accepted without question simply because they are regarded as authentic within a particular religious system?

Or should every historical claim be examined critically?


The Biblical Principle of Testing Claims

The Apostle Paul exhorts believers:

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
(1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV)

Similarly, Luke commends the Bereans:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
(Acts 17:11, KJV)

Biblical faith encourages examination rather than blind acceptance.


Questions for Debate

  1. If Adam truly stood ninety feet tall, why does the Bible never mention such an extraordinary feature?

  2. Should authentic hadith be accepted as historically accurate solely because they are classified as ṣaḥīḥ?

  3. Is there any verified archaeological evidence supporting the existence of ninety-foot humans?

  4. If humanity has gradually decreased in height since Adam, why does the fossil record not document intermediate populations of progressively shrinking humans?

  5. Would a ninety-foot human body be biologically viable according to current scientific understanding?

  6. If the hadith is intended metaphorically, what textual evidence supports a non-literal interpretation?

  7. If interpreted literally, what implications would this have for anthropology, archaeology, and human history?

  8. Should theological claims be exempt from historical and scientific examination?

  9. Why does the Qur'an itself never state Adam's height if this detail is historically significant?

  10. Which should carry greater authority for Christians—the canonical Scriptures or later extra-biblical traditions?


Conclusion

The Christian objection is not that God lacked the power to create Adam at any height He desired. God is omnipotent.

Rather, the question concerns historical reliability.

The Bible never claims Adam measured sixty cubits.

The hadith does.

Since there is presently no verified archaeological evidence supporting the existence of ninety-foot humans, and since Scripture remains silent regarding such extraordinary dimensions, Christians are justified in examining this tradition critically rather than accepting it uncritically.

Faith and reason need not be enemies.

Truth welcomes investigation.

As Scripture declares:

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
—1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

Those committed to the pursuit of truth should therefore examine every historical and theological claim carefully, comparing it with Scripture, sound reasoning, and credible evidence.


The Authors of the Major Sahih Hadith Collections Never Met Prophet Muhammad


The Authors of the Major Sahih Hadith Collections Never Met Prophet Muhammad

Muslims often rely on the Sahih hadith collections as authoritative sources about the life and teachings of Muhammad. However, an important historical fact is that none of the major hadith compilers ever met Muhammad personally. They lived roughly two to three centuries after his death and depended on oral reports transmitted through chains of narrators.

Some of the most influential hadith scholars include:

  1. Imam Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (810–870 CE) – Born in Bukhara (present-day Uzbekistan). His family was of Persian heritage. He never met Muhammad, who died in 632 CE.

  2. Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (821–875 CE) – Born in Nishapur (present-day Iran), a major center of Persian culture. He also lived nearly two centuries after Muhammad.

  3. Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (817–889 CE) – Born in Sistan, a historical region spanning present-day Iran and Afghanistan.

  4. Muhammad ibn Isa al-Tirmidhi (824–892 CE) – Born in Termez (present-day Uzbekistan).

  5. Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb al-Nasa'i (829–915 CE) – Born in Nasa, in present-day Turkmenistan.

  6. Ibn Majah (824–887 CE) – Born in Qazvin, present-day Iran (Persia).

These scholars did not claim to be eyewitnesses. Instead, they evaluated reports based on the reliability of the narrators and the continuity of the chains of transmission (isnad). Whether this method is sufficient to establish historical certainty is a matter of scholarly debate, but historically it is accurate to say that none of these compilers personally knew or met Muhammad.


Does Islam Promise Sensual Rewards for Jihad?

Does Islam Promise Sensual Rewards for Jihad?

A Theological Examination of Jami' at-Tirmidhi 1663

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

One of the most controversial subjects in Islamic theology concerns the rewards promised to those who die while fighting in the cause of Allah. Among the traditions frequently discussed is a narration found in Jami' at-Tirmidhi 1663, which describes extraordinary rewards awaiting the martyr (shahid), including the promise of spouses from among the hur al-'ayn (often translated as "wide-eyed maidens" or "heavenly companions").

Critics have long questioned whether such descriptions encourage believers to pursue warfare by appealing to earthly desires rather than spiritual devotion.

The narration has become the subject of debate between Muslims, Christians, secular scholars, and former Muslims alike.

What Does the Hadith Say?

According to Jami' at-Tirmidhi 1663, the martyr is promised several rewards, including:

  • Forgiveness of sins.

  • Entry into Paradise.

  • Protection from the punishment of the grave.

  • Safety from the greatest terror on the Day of Judgment.

  • A crown of honor.

  • Marriage to heavenly companions (hur al-'ayn).

  • The ability to intercede for relatives.

Many later Islamic scholars and traditions discuss the number of these heavenly companions, with the figure of 72 becoming widely known in popular discussions, although scholars debate how broadly that number applies and the authenticity and interpretation of related narrations.

A Christian Theological Perspective

The New Testament presents a very different understanding of eternal life.

Jesus never encouraged His followers to kill in order to obtain Paradise.

Instead, Christ taught:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
— Matthew 5:9

When Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus, Christ immediately rebuked him:

"Put your sword back in its place... for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
— Matthew 26:52

Jesus described heaven not as a place of sensual gratification but as eternal fellowship with God.

He declared:

"In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven."
— Matthew 22:30

The Christian hope is centered on the presence of God, not on physical pleasures.

Questions Worth Considering

Whether one is Muslim, Christian, or simply interested in comparative religion, these questions deserve thoughtful reflection:

  1. Why would eternal Paradise be described using earthly sensual desires?

  2. If heaven is perfect communion with God, why emphasize physical rewards?

  3. Can promises of extraordinary personal rewards influence people's willingness to participate in warfare?

  4. Does the highest form of faith seek God Himself, or the rewards He gives?

  5. Why did Jesus teach His followers to love their enemies, while some Islamic traditions praise dying in armed struggle under certain conditions?

  6. If martyrdom brings guaranteed heavenly rewards, could such beliefs be exploited by extremist recruiters?

  7. Which picture of heaven more fully reflects God's holiness—one centered on intimacy with God or one emphasizing sensual pleasures?

The Difference Between Jesus and Muhammad

According to the New Testament:

  • Jesus sacrificed Himself for sinners.

  • Jesus forgave those who crucified Him.

  • Jesus commanded His followers to love their enemies.

  • Jesus offered eternal life as a gift of grace through faith.

The Gospel never teaches believers to kill others in order to receive heavenly rewards.

Final Reflection

Every worldview should be examined honestly.

If a religion's description of heaven closely resembles the fulfillment of earthly appetites, thoughtful readers may ask whether that vision reflects divine revelation or human expectation.

Christians believe that the greatest reward of heaven is not wealth, power, or sensual pleasure—it is seeing the face of God and dwelling forever in His presence.

"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will dwell with them."
— Revelation 21:3

The invitation of Jesus is not to seek Paradise because of its pleasures, but to seek God Himself.


Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

"Test everything; hold fast what is good."1 Thessalonians 5:21


THE NAMES OF THE PROPHETS IN THE ARABIC BIBLE AND THE QUR'AN Why Do the Names Differ?


THE NAMES OF THE PROPHETS IN THE ARABIC BIBLE AND THE QUR'AN

Why Do the Names Differ?

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute

Introduction

One of the most fascinating differences between the Arabic Bible and the Qur'an is the way many biblical figures are named. While the Arabic Bible generally preserves names that closely reflect the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek forms, the Qur'an often uses different Arabic names.

This raises important historical and theological questions.

Why does the Arabic Bible call Jesus Yasūʿ (يسوع) while the Qur'an calls Him ʿĪsā (عيسى)?

Why does the Arabic Bible call John the Baptist Yūḥannā (يوحنا) while the Qur'an calls him Yaḥyā (يحيى)?

Are these merely linguistic differences, or do they reflect a different religious tradition?


Comparing the Names

Biblical PersonOriginal Hebrew/AramaicGreekArabic BibleQur'an
JesusYeshua (ישוע)IēsousYasūʿ (يسوع)ʿĪsā (عيسى)
John the BaptistYohanan (יוחנן)IōannēsYūḥannā (يوحنا)Yaḥyā (يحيى)
JonahYonah (יונה)IōnasYūnus (يونس) or Yūnān in some traditionsYūnus (يونس)
DanielDaniyyelDaniēlDāniyāl (دانيال)Not mentioned by name
MosesMosheMōysēsMūsāMūsā
AbrahamAvrahamAbraamIbrāhīmIbrāhīm

Notice that not every name differs. Some names, such as Moses and Abraham, are shared between the Arabic Bible and the Qur'an. Others, however, are remarkably different.


Jesus: Yasūʿ vs. ʿĪsā

The historical name of Jesus was the Aramaic Yeshua (Yeshooʿa).

The Greek New Testament renders this as Iēsous.

Arabic-speaking Christians have, for centuries, called Jesus:

يسوع (Yasūʿ)

This closely follows the original pronunciation.

The Qur'an, however, consistently calls Him:

عيسى (ʿĪsā)

This form is unique.

Unlike "Yasūʿ," it does not directly correspond to the Hebrew or Aramaic form of Jesus' name.

The origin of "ʿĪsā" has been debated by historians and linguists for centuries. Proposed explanations include borrowing from Syriac, influence from other Semitic dialects, or development within the Arabic-speaking environment of Late Antiquity. There is no scholarly consensus on why the Qur'an uses this form.


John the Baptist: Yūḥannā vs. Yaḥyā

John's Hebrew name was:

Yohanan

meaning:

"YHWH has been gracious."

The Greek New Testament calls him:

Iōannēs

The Arabic Bible preserves this naturally:

يوحنا (Yūḥannā)

Yet the Qur'an introduces a different name:

يحيى (Yaḥyā)

This is not simply another pronunciation of Yohanan.

It is an entirely different Arabic name.

The Qur'an itself states that this name had not been given to anyone before (Qur'an 19:7), presenting it as a special divinely bestowed name.


Jonah

In this case, the Arabic Bible and the Qur'an are much closer.

Hebrew:

Yonah

Greek:

Iōnas

Arabic:

Yūnus (يونس)

Here there is little disagreement.


The Meaning Hidden in Biblical Names

Many biblical names contain part of God's covenant name:

YHWH

For example:

Yohanan

means:

"YHWH is gracious."

Likewise, the longer form of Jesus' Hebrew name (Yehoshua) incorporates the divine name and means:

"YHWH saves."

These meanings are rooted in Hebrew etymology. Whether or not later language forms visibly preserve those elements, the underlying Hebrew names do.


Nebuchadnezzar Changed Hebrew Names

The Bible records another famous episode involving changed names.

Daniel 1:6–7 says Nebuchadnezzar renamed the young Hebrew captives:

  • Daniel → Belteshazzar

  • Hananiah → Shadrach

  • Mishael → Meshach

  • Azariah → Abednego

This was not merely administrative.

Their Hebrew names honored the God of Israel.

Their Babylonian names reflected Babylonian religious culture and deities.

The renaming symbolized the attempt to reshape their identity under Babylonian rule.


An Important Question

Some Christian apologists ask whether the Qur'an's distinctive naming of certain biblical figures should be viewed in a similar light—as reflecting a new religious tradition that reinterprets earlier biblical history.

They argue that:

  • the Arabic Bible preserves forms closer to the biblical originals;

  • the Qur'an sometimes introduces names not found in the Bible's Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek textual traditions; and

  • this may signal theological reinterpretation rather than simple translation.

Muslim scholars, however, generally respond that the Qur'anic names represent authentic forms revealed by God, regardless of whether they match the forms preserved in the Bible or other ancient manuscripts.

Readers should therefore distinguish between historical-linguistic evidence and theological interpretation.


Does History Repeat Itself?

Nebuchadnezzar sought to reshape the identity of God's people through new names associated with his own religious world.

Some Christian critics of Islam suggest that the Qur'an's use of distinctive names similarly reflects the formation of a new religious identity centered on its own sacred history rather than preserving biblical naming traditions.

Whether this analogy is persuasive is ultimately a theological judgment rather than a historical conclusion. The biblical account explicitly attributes Nebuchadnezzar's renaming to Babylonian imperial policy, while the Qur'an presents its names as divinely revealed.


Conclusion

The Arabic Bible and the Qur'an tell many of the same stories but often use different names for key figures.

The Arabic Bible generally follows the names found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures:

  • Jesus → Yasūʿ

  • John → Yūḥannā

The Qur'an instead uses:

  • ʿĪsā

  • Yaḥyā

These differences have generated centuries of discussion among linguists, historians, Christians, and Muslims.

For Christians, the preservation of biblical names is significant because names in Scripture often carry theological meaning connected to God's covenant with Israel.

For Muslims, the Qur'anic forms are accepted as part of divine revelation.

The comparison invites careful study of the historical development of both traditions and encourages readers to examine the textual evidence for themselves.

If you'd like, I can also prepare this as a professional two-page infographic in your usual black-and-gold apologetics style, including a comparison table of 20 biblical names in the Arabic Bible versus the Qur'an.

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

A WARNING FROM ALLAH: MUSLIMS WHO CLAIM THE BIBLE IS CORRUPTED WILL ENTER HELL

 

A WARNING FROM ALLAH: MUSLIMS WHO CLAIM THE BIBLE IS CORRUPTED WILL ENTER HELL

Where are the uncorrupted Bibles now to give evidence of the corruption of the Bibles we have today? Why would Christians corrupt their own Scriptures?

Dr. Maxwell Shimba | Shimba Theological Institute


INTRODUCTION: THE DIVINE WARNING

Allah issues a solemn warning to humanity. He warns Muslims specifically to cease spreading falsehoods about His divine Books. One such falsehood is the claim by some Muslims that certain divine Scriptures have been altered or corrupted. If you are a Muslim, it is imperative that you seriously contemplate Allah's stern warning to all those who propagate malicious lies about the integrity of the Bible:

Surah 40:70-72: "Those who gave the lie to this Book and all the Books which We had sent with Our Messengers shall soon come to know the Truth when fetters and chains shall be on their necks, and they shall be dragged into boiling water, and cast into the Fire." (Maududi)

This warning carries profound implications. Those who reject or slander the previous divine revelations—the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel—are threatened with severe punishment. The Qur'an consistently affirms the authenticity and authority of these earlier Scriptures. To claim otherwise is to contradict the very text Muslims hold sacred.


QUESTIONS FOR MUSLIMS

If Muslims are sincere in their claim that the Bible has been corrupted and therefore is no longer the authentic Word of God, they must be able to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions:

1. Historical Inquiry

When, and up to what period of time in history, was the true uncorrupted Bible in circulation?

Muslims must specify the historical timeframe during which the allegedly pure and uncorrupted Bible existed. When exactly did the corruption occur? Was it before Muhammad's time? During his lifetime? After his death? Without a clear historical timeline, the claim of corruption remains vague and unsubstantiated.

2. Evidentiary Question

Where are the uncorrupted Bibles now to give evidence of the corruption of the Bibles we have today?

If the Bible was corrupted, there must exist some original, uncorrupted copies against which the corrupted versions could be compared. Where are these originals? Why has no Muslim scholar ever produced a single manuscript of this alleged original Bible?

3. Logical Proof

Is it not true that to prove the dollar somebody holds is forged, you have to have the authentic dollar to compare it with the forged dollar?

This is a fundamental principle of evidence. To prove forgery, one must possess the genuine article. The same logical principle applies to the Bible. Without an authentic, uncorrupted manuscript for comparison, the claim of corruption cannot be substantiated.

4. Possession of Evidence

Do Muslims have the "authentic Bible" to compare it with the Bible that we have today?

If Muslims possess no authentic Bible for comparison, on what basis do they make their claim? The absence of the original renders the accusation of corruption logically untenable.

5. Substantiation Failure

Since the entire Muslim world is unable to produce a single copy of the alleged "original Bible," does it not then prove that the claim that the Bible is corrupted is totally unsubstantiated?

More than fourteen centuries have passed since Islam emerged. In all that time, not a single Muslim scholar has produced any manuscript evidence of a pre-corruption Bible. This absence of evidence constitutes compelling evidence against the claim.

6. Conspiracy Question

If Christians and Jews have two different religions, what is the purpose of their conspiracy to corrupt their own Scriptures?

This question exposes the logical inconsistency in the Muslim position. Jews and Christians possess distinct theological traditions. Why would they collaborate to corrupt texts they hold sacred? What possible common motive could unite them in such a conspiracy against their own faith?

7. Self-Destructive Act

Why would Christians corrupt their own Scriptures?

This question strikes at the heart of the claim. Why would believers corrupt the very document they believe to contain God's revelation? To corrupt one's Scripture is to undermine one's own faith foundation. Such behavior is psychologically and theologically inexplicable.

8. Underlying Motive

What is the motive of the Jews and Christians for corrupting their own Scriptures?

If Muslims claim this corruption occurred, they must identify the motive. What would drive Jews and Christians to corrupt their sacred texts—texts they believed came from God? No rational motive has ever been proposed.

9. Divine Protection Question

Where was Allah during the time when all these changes supposedly took place?

If Allah had revealed the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel as divine revelations, would He not protect them from corruption? Would He remain passive while His words were being altered? The Qur'an itself affirms that Allah protects His messages.

10. Qur'anic Promise

What happened to Allah's solemn promise in the Qur'an that "none can change his Word"?

Surah 6:115: "The word of your Lord has been completed in truth and justice; none can change His words."

Surah 10:64: "No change can there be in the words of Allah."

If Allah's words cannot be changed, and the Bible represents Allah's words, then the Bible cannot have been corrupted. To claim otherwise is to question Allah's power and promise.

11. Selective Acceptance

Even though Muslims claim the Bible to be corrupted, why do they still accept as true that it foretold the coming of Muhammad?

Muslims regularly cite biblical prophecies as evidence for Muhammad's prophethood. If the Bible is corrupted, how can any prophecy within it be trusted? This selective approach to biblical authority is logically inconsistent.

12. Paradoxical Validation

Why do Muslims still use this very same "corrupted Bible" to validate Muhammad's prophethood?

If the Bible is unreliable and corrupt, why do Muslims reference it to prove the truth of Islam? This demonstrates that, at some level, Muslims recognize the Bible's reliability—except when it contradicts their theological claims.

13. Consistency Question

Is it logical for someone claiming the food to be poisoned, to still find parts of it suitable for consumption?

This analogy illustrates the logical inconsistency in the Muslim position. If the Bible is corrupted and unreliable, why do Muslims accept certain portions as trustworthy while rejecting others? This selective acceptance undermines the claim of universal corruption.


THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

The ancient copies of the entire Bible, known as the Codices, date back centuries before the arrival of Islam in the early Seventh Century C.E. These manuscripts provide irrefutable evidence of the Bible's textual integrity.

The Most Well-Known Codices:

1. The Septuagint (Second Century B.C.E.)

This is the earliest translation of the complete Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation is kept in the British Museum and provides evidence that the Old Testament text has been faithfully transmitted for over two millennia.

2. The Codex Vaticanus (Fourth Century C.E.)

This codex is kept at the Vatican Library in Rome and represents one of the oldest and most reliable manuscript witnesses to the Greek Bible. It contains virtually the entire Old and New Testaments.

3. The Codex Sinaiticus (Fourth Century C.E.)

This codex is kept in the British Museum and contains the complete Bible in Greek. It has been crucial in demonstrating the textual stability of the Bible over the centuries.

4. The Codex Alexandrinus (Fifth Century C.E.)

This codex is also kept in the British Museum and provides additional confirmation of the biblical text's preservation.

Significance of the Codices

All these ancient Codices existed long before the arrival of the Qur'an. They testify to the authenticity of the Bible we possess today. The existence of manuscripts such as the Septuagint, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Alexandrinus conclusively demonstrates that the Bible in our possession has remained essentially unchanged from the time it was revealed.

These manuscripts serve as the authoritative documentary evidence against which all modern translations can be checked, ensuring that present-day Christians are guided accurately by the inspired message of Jehovah their God.

Muslim Failure to Provide Evidence

Muslims provide no dates when the supposed changing took place. They offer no names of the places where the supposed changing was initiated. They identify no individuals responsible for the changes. And most significantly, they possess no copies of the supposedly original Bible. Yet they audaciously assume it happened.

To believe that the Bible is corrupted is to embrace a great deception that will hinder Muslims from reading and discovering the wonderful truth of God within its pages. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the Bible described as being textually corrupted. If there were any evidence of actual textual corruption (tahrif), Muslims would have eagerly produced it immediately.


THE ISLAMIC DEFINITION OF TAHRIF

In "The Book of Monotheism," which is part of his Sahih, Imam Al-Bukhari explains the meaning of "tahrif" as follows:

"Tahrif means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Tahrif was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning (misinterpreting it)."

This authoritative Islamic source acknowledges a crucial distinction. Tahrif (corruption) does not refer to textual alteration of the biblical manuscripts. Rather, it refers to the misinterpretation and misapplication of the text. Since "no one can alter any written character in a book of God," Muslims must resort to deception when they accuse the Bible of textual corruption.

The Devastating Consequence for Islam

Muslims who maintain that the Bible was changed after the time of Muhammad fail to acknowledge that this charge contradicts the claim of the Qur'an to be the guardian of the earlier Scriptures. To believe in the corruption of the Torah, the Gospel, and the other Scriptures of the Bible is to charge the Qur'an with failure in its role to act as the guardian of the Bible.

Surah 5:48: "We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming the Book that came before it, and as a guardian over it."

The Qur'an claims to stand as a guardian over the previous Scriptures. If those Scriptures have been corrupted, the Qur'an has failed in its guardian role. Additionally, Allah Himself promised to protect all His inspired Messages:

Surah 15:9: "We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it."

Therefore, if any claim is made that the Bible is changed, it must be concluded that the Qur'an and Allah are not to be trusted. This is a devastating logical consequence that sincere Muslims must confront.


THE QUR'AN'S TESTIMONY TO THE BIBLE'S INTEGRITY

An honest reading of the Qur'an proves that from the very beginning of Islam, Muhammad accepted the Bible as the unchanged Word of God.

Qur'anic Verses Affirming the Bible's Authority

Surah 5:47: "Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed—then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient."

Surah 5:68: "Say, 'O People of the Scripture, you are not standing on anything until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.'"

Surah 3:3-4: "He has sent down the Book to you in truth, confirming what was before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this, as a guidance for mankind."

Surah 7:157: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel."

Surah 2:136: "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what has been given to Moses and Jesus and what has been given to the prophets from their Lord."

Surah 10:94: "If you are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who have been reading the Book before you."

Surah 29:46: "We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is one."

Implications of the Qur'anic Testimony

These verses demonstrate that the Qur'an consistently upholds the authority, reliability, and integrity of the Bible. The Qur'an instructs Muslims to:

  1. Judge by what is in the Torah and Gospel (Surah 5:47)

  2. Stand on the Torah and Gospel (Surah 5:68)

  3. Confirm the previous Scriptures (Surah 3:3-4)

  4. Find Muhammad mentioned in the Torah and Gospel (Surah 7:157)

  5. Believe in the previous revelations (Surah 2:136)

  6. Consult the People of the Book when in doubt (Surah 10:94)

Since the Qur'an persistently and consistently upholds the integrity of the Bible, it would contradict itself if there were even slight hints of textual corruption of the Bible within its pages. The accusation of biblical corruption is a later innovation, not a teaching of the Qur'an.


THEOLOGICAL AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS

The Consistency Argument

Logically, if the Bible was ever the Word of God, then God would never allow it to become corrupted at a later time. Since the Qur'an acknowledges that the Torah, the Gospel, and the rest of the Scriptures of the Bible that were given to the Jews and Christians are the Words of Allah, this rules out the possibility of any changes occurring in the Bible at a later period of time.

Therefore, for any changes to occur in the Bibles would mean that the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Since Muslims know this, why do they then insist persistently that the Bible has been changed?

The Dilemma for Muslims

Muslims who claim the Bible has been corrupted face a devastating dilemma. They stand to lose if the Bible is corrupted, and they stand to lose if it is not. Either option spells disaster for Islam and the Qur'an.

If the Bible is corrupted:

  • The Qur'an is proven wrong for affirming the Bible's integrity

  • Allah is proven powerless to protect His Word

  • The Qur'an has failed in its role as guardian

  • The promise that "none can change His words" is proven false

If the Bible is not corrupted:

  • The Qur'an's affirmation of the Bible is validated

  • But the Bible's testimony to Christ's deity, death, and resurrection stands

  • The Bible's message contradicts Islamic theology

  • Islam is proven to be a false religion

Either way, the Islamic position is logically unsustainable.


HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORRUPTION CLAIM

Muhammad's Acceptance of the Bible

Muhammad died in 632 C.E. Accusations that the Bible had become corrupted did not arise during the first four centuries following Muhammad's death. Islamic sources reveal that it was not until 1064 C.E.—more than 430 years after Muhammad's death—that the first allegation of Bible corruption was made.

Ibn-Khazem (994-1064 C.E.)

It was only with Ibn-Khazem that the charge of falsification was first made during the 11th century C.E. This charge was concocted by Ibn-Khazem in a desperate effort to defend Islam's integrity against Christianity when he came upon many serious contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible. To reconcile the differences in favor of the Qur'an, he deviously accused the Bible of corruption.

Thus, the belief that the Bible is corrupted did not originate with the teachings of Allah, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. It emerged centuries later as a polemical device to defend Islam from the overwhelming evidence of the Bible's superiority.


THE TESTIMONY OF EARLY MUSLIM THEOLOGIANS

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209 C.E.)

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is a well-known and respected Persian Sunni Muslim theologian and philosopher. He made this statement on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a paternal cousin of Prophet Muhammad:

"The Jew and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Tawrat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation could therefore be made in them, although it is admitted that some people used to conceal their true sense and interpretation." (Sayyid Ahmad, THE MOHAMMEDAN COMMENTARY on the HOLY BIBLE, 7th discourse, p.81)

Implications of al-Razi's Statement

This commentary by a prominent Sunni Muslim theologian clearly shows that it is impossible to alter the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. The solid reason is "because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated."

Not practicable means:

  • Not feasible

  • Not realistic

  • Not possible

  • Not workable

  • Not practical

  • Not viable

  • Not achievable

  • Not doable

In short, it means it is utterly impossible to corrupt the Bible.

Additionally, they also stated that "no interpolation could therefore be made in them." In other words, no intrusions can be made in them. Therefore, no alterations of the texts could be made in the Bible by the deliberate insertion of foreign or unauthorized materials.

The Problem of Suspicion

It is interesting to note that the Jews and Christians were only looked upon with suspicion of having altered their Scriptures. The fact that the Jews and Christians were only suspected reveals that Islam does not have a single shred of evidence to validate the claim that the Jews and the Christians actually corrupted their Scriptures. This substantiates the truth that Muslims do not have a single piece of tangible evidence—such as the actual textual corruption of the Scriptures—to charge the Jews and Christians of corrupting their Scriptures.

The Admission of Impossibility

Even the grounds for suspicion were shown to be unfounded because in the admission of these eminent doctors and theologians of Islam "it was not practicable to corrupt the text." Why is it not practicable? The reason is irrefutably clear: "because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation could therefore be made in them."

Thus, Islam's own conclusion proves that "it was not practicable to corrupt the text."

The Significance of This Admission

What is more important is the fact that this confirms the undeniable truth that there are no teachings of the corruption of the Holy Bible in the Qur'an. Should teachings of the corruption of the Bible exist in the Qur'an, it would have strongly influenced the opinion of these eminent doctors and theologians of Islam. They would not have said that "it was not practicable to corrupt the text" and "no interpolation could be made in them." They would not dare to contradict the Qur'an.

Therefore, Muslims who boldly claim that the Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible are treading on thin ice when they say this. They are contradicting both the Qur'an and the testimony of their own most respected scholars.


DIVINE WARNINGS IN THE HOLY BIBLE

God severely warns anyone who tries to change His inspired Word—the Holy Bible. As the Author, God holds the eternal copyright. Jehovah strictly forbids the addition or removal of anything from His inspired Word.

Deuteronomy 4:2

"You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you take anything away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you."

Revelation 22:18-19

The Bible ends with this warning in the last chapter of the final book:

"I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes anything away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

The Finality of the Bible

The Bible is the final revelation of God to man. The Bible itself testifies to this truth. In fact, it is the only true revelation of God. The Book of Revelation has sealed all messages and revelations. No man is to add any further messages or revelations to the Bible. And no man should subtract from it.

Jude 3

"I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones."

The Bible is the complete and final Book of God. Genesis is the Book of the Beginning in the Bible and Revelation is the Book of the End. The connection between Genesis and Revelation is truly remarkable.

Parallels Between Genesis and Revelation:

GenesisRevelation
Satan's first appearanceSatan's final destruction
Paradise lostParadise restored
Sin entered the worldSin is removed
Death came to the human raceDeath is removed
Curse pronouncedCurse removed
Access to tree of life lostAccess to tree of life restored
Marriage establishedMarriage of the Lamb

These things cannot be said of any other book outside the Bible. The Qur'an does not fit into this equation. The Bible is the standard by which we judge the truthfulness of everything else.

The Qur'an Fails the Test

The Qur'an, which came centuries later, blasphemously attempts to add to the revelations of the Bible. Thus, the Qur'an fails the test of the Scripture in Revelation 22:18-19. Therefore, it cannot be a final revelation of God. It is not supposed to be.

Since the Bible is God's complete and final revelation to men, it repeatedly warns against those who claim to have received other revelations from God.

Galatians 1:8-9

"But, even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to declare any other gospel to you than what we have declared to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone declares any other gospel to you than what you received, let him be accursed."

Those who claim to bring new revelations in addition to the Bible not only contradict and deny the Bible but are condemned by it.


THE PRESERVATION OF THE BIBLE

Psalm 119:89

"Forever, O Jehovah, Your Word is firmly fixed in the heavens."

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

The Bible is God's gift to mankind. It reveals the mind of God. There is no greater wealth than the Word of God. As such, it will be preserved at all times. And God has promised to do just that.

Psalm 12:6-7

"The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings, As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times. You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them. You will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite."


THE QUR'AN'S OWN ADMISSION OF CORRUPTION

Surah 15:90-93

"Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Qur'an into shreds. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did." (Shakir)

"Just as We sent down to the separatists. Those who made the Qur'an obsolete. By your Lord, we will question them all. About what they used to do." (Talal A. Itani)

"Even as We sent down on the dividers, who reduced the Qur'an into pieces, by your Lord, We will question them all concerning what they used to do." (Ali Quli Qara'i)

Yes! The Qur'an admits it has been tampered with. And in addition to this admission in the Qur'an, authentic Islamic sources also confirm that the Qur'an has been corrupted.

Testimony of Abdullah bin Umar

Abdullah bin Umar, the son of Caliph Umar, stated:

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur'an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur'an has been lost, thus let him say, 'I have acquired of it what is available.'" (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72)

Testimony of Ubay ibn Ka'b

This fact is also confirmed by Ubay ibn Ka'b, who was a very close Companion of Muhammad:

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, 'How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?' He said, 'Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.' He (Ubay) told him, 'It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.' The man asked, 'What is the verse of the stoning?' He said, 'If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."' (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72)

Surah 5:101

"O ye who believe! Ask not of things which, if they were made known unto you, would trouble you." (Pickthall)


A FINAL THOUGHT FOR MUSLIMS TO CONTEMPLATE

There is an old English proverb which says, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." It means that we should be careful how we treat others because they could easily do likewise to us.

Muslims should not forget their own vulnerability and "throw stones" at Christians by criticizing their sacred Scriptures. Rather, they should look into their own backyard first. It will be sensible for Muslims to seriously consider what the Qur'an itself reveals about the Qur'an.

The Call to Sincerity

Sincere Muslims should be glad with the evidences provided here because they prove the Qur'an to be right when it says that "none can change the Word of God." And this means, the Bible that we have today is the authentic, unchanged Word of God.

Muslims do not have any valid grounds to reject the Bible since the claim that it was corrupted cannot be supported by the teachings of the Qur'an. Therefore, in harmony with the teachings of the Qur'an, Muslims should accept the Bible as the authentic Word of God. And it truly is.


THE TRUE AUTHOR OF THE HOLY BIBLE

We know for a certainty that Allah is neither the author nor the inspiration behind the Holy Bible. However, for the duration of this article, we have gone along with the Qur'an's claim that Allah revealed the Bible to mankind. It was a necessary approach that had to be employed to prove to Muslims that their own sacred book confirms the integrity of the Holy Bible.

However, before we conclude, it is absolutely necessary to clearly identify the true Author of the Holy Bible.

Psalm 83:18

"May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth."

Psalm 72:19

"Blessed be his glorious name to time indefinite. And let his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen."


CONCLUSION

Summary of Arguments

  1. The Qur'an testifies to the Bible's integrity. Throughout its pages, the Qur'an affirms the Torah and Gospel as divine revelations that Muslims should respect and consult.

  2. The claim of corruption is historically late. It did not emerge until the 11th century C.E., more than 400 years after Muhammad's death, and was developed as a polemical defense against Christianity.

  3. No manuscript evidence exists. Muslims have never produced a single manuscript of the alleged uncorrupted Bible. The earliest manuscripts confirm the reliability of the text we possess today.

  4. Early Islamic scholars rejected textual corruption. Respected theologians like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi affirmed that the biblical text could not be corrupted because it was widely circulated and known.

  5. The accusation is logically inconsistent. It contradicts the Qur'an's promise that "none can change His words" and challenges Allah's power to protect His revelation.

  6. The Qur'an itself admits to corruption. The Qur'an acknowledges that it has been tampered with, and authentic Islamic sources confirm that portions of the Qur'an have been lost.

The Path Forward

Muslims who truly seek the truth are urged to reconsider their position. The Bible stands as a reliable, authentic, and divinely preserved revelation. Its manuscript evidence is unparalleled in ancient literature. Its message of salvation through Jesus Christ has transformed countless lives across the centuries.

The claims of biblical corruption serve only to keep Muslims from discovering the wonderful truth within the pages of Scripture. The Bible invites all people to know God personally through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Final Appeal

To our Muslim readers, we extend this sincere appeal:

  1. Examine the evidence honestly. The manuscript evidence for the Bible's reliability is overwhelming.

  2. Read the Qur'an carefully. It consistently affirms the Bible's integrity and authority.

  3. Consider the historical record. The charge of biblical corruption is a late innovation, not a teaching of the Qur'an or Muhammad.

  4. Seek the truth. God promises that those who seek Him with a sincere heart will find Him.

  5. Read the Bible for yourself. Discover the message of God's love, salvation, and eternal life.

The Bible declares:

"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

May you find the truth that sets you free.


ENDNOTES

[1] See introductory commentary to Surah 2 (Surah Al-Baqarah) by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall in his translation of the Qur'an. (The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an)

[2] Al-Baidhawi explains that "watch over it" means, "The Qur'an is the protector of all the sacred books to preserve them from any kind of change." [Qazi Nasiruddin Abusaeed Abudullah bin Umar al-Baidhawi (1300 A.D.) wrote a well known commentary on the Qur'an, originally called "Anwar-al-tunzeel" but now known as "Tafsir-e-Baidhawi"]

[3] See introductory commentary to Surah 6 (Surah Al-Anam) by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall in his translation of the Qur'an. (The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an)

[4] See introductory commentary to Surah 5 (Surah Al-Maidah) by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall in his translation of the Qur'an. (The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an)

[5] Jesus sub-divided the Old Testament into three basic categories: Luke 24:44: "He (Jesus) now said to them: 'These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.'"

[6] The Qur'an testifies that Muhammad underwent an episode of inner spiritual crisis giving rise to doubts. This was especially true when he lost hope of performing miracles. Thus, Allah found it necessary to reprimand him in:

Surah 11:12: "Perhaps you are leaving part of what has been sent down to you, and your chest is straitened by it, because they say: 'Why has no treasure been sent down to him, or an angel come with him?' You are only a warner and Allah is a Guardian over everything." (Qaribullah)

Surah 6:35: "And if their aversion is grievous unto thee, then, if thou canst, seek a way down into the earth or a ladder unto the sky that thou mayst bring unto them a portent (to convince them all)!—If Allah willed, He could have brought them all together to the guidance—So be not thou among the foolish ones." (Pickthall)

Surah 46:9: "Say: 'I am no new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.'" (Pickthall)

Surah 6:50: "Say (O Muhammad, to the disbelievers): 'I say not unto you (that) I possess the treasures of Allah, nor that I have knowledge of the Unseen; and I say not unto you: Lo! I am an angel. I follow only that which is inspired in me.'" (Pickthall)

Surah 7:188: "Say: 'For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner, and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe.'" (Pickthall)


Dr. Maxwell Shimba serves as a faculty member at Shimba Theological Institute, dedicated to biblical scholarship and interfaith understanding. This article is offered in a spirit of love and truth-seeking, with the sincere hope that all may come to know the God of the Bible through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

JESUS IS GOD Unique Attributes of God in the Bible and the Quran

  Comparative Theological Study: The Divinity of Jesus Christ in Light of Biblical and Quranic Texts Author: Dr. Maxwell Shimba Institution...

TRENDING NOW