The Quaran is not God's Word

In this last round I want to remind all who read this of the following facts: Con actually compares Japan being called the country of the rising sun to Zul-Qarnain finding the sun SET IN A MUDDY POOL. I simply don't see any parallel here, and if you don't, vote Pro! He says it only APPEARED to Zul-Qarnain as though he had reached the place where the sun sets, and I pointed out how impossible it is for it to appear that way because the sun always appears to be on the horizon ahead of us! Further the Quran isn't saying it "appeared" to him so, nor is this a 1st person account from Zul-Qarnain. All these excuses were invented by Muslims like Con to explain away the scientific blunders in their holy book. He knows full well that I couldn't go over all these points in the limited word space I had because I took the time to address in detail specific points he made that used up my room. I also think his rebuttals were not convincing, so I need not use all my space going over old arguments when I could get in some fresh ones. But all my claims still stand unimpeached. The Quran says Moses was the first Muslim, the Abraham was the first Muslim, that Muhammad was the first Muslim. All these claims can't be true. Con said "first" meant the first among his people to receive the message, but he dropped that claim when I showed him Moses' mother, according to the Quran, was a Muslim before him. So he couldn't be the first among his people. Con also said "first" means the most faithful. He couldn't show where the Quran defines "first" in that way, and I don't know of any dictionary that defines it so either. This is just another fabrication of Muslim apologists trying to polish errors out of the Quran. If you don't find his answer convincing, vote Pro. He also said about Aisha's age, that Muslims don't accept something just because one person says it, and I mentioned (even giving him a link to) many sources from the hadiths that say Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad married her. He dismissed all these as Sunni sources without giving any rational reason why we should only trust Shia sources over Sunni. Even though Sunni's outnumber Shias, "As of 2009, Sunni Muslims constituted 87"90% of the world's Muslim population"https://en.wikipedia.org... which means its not just one person in Islam but many saying that Aisha was 9 years old. Here he has the many he calls for, but denies them still. So, the few sunni sources he cites claims she was older, about 17-18, and why should we trust them over what the majority of Muslims accept as reliable hadiths? Just goes to show that even their hadiths contradict each other; so not only does the Quran contradict itself, but so do the hadiths. This doesn't build confidence that God told any of these authors to write the Quran or the hadith. If you agree, vote Pro. Con also cites Catholics in trouble for molestation, and that helps his case how? I'm not a Catholic and never believed God supports Catholicism, so how does this justify a 50 year old man having sex with a teenage girl? If you would not want your teenage daughter marrying at such a young age, vote Pro. Notice, Pro says if the girl is ok with it, so is her family, and so is the man and his god (allah), then it's ok. So when a girl, her family, fianc"e and their god agree to female genital circumcision, that would make it ok using Con's logic. Even though this practice causes " recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding.[5] There are no known health benefits.[8]"https://en.wikipedia.org... After being brainwashed by Islamic society, of course this teen and her family agreed to Muhammad marrying their little girl. It's still perverted though, for an old man to get horny with a little girl. I have given good evidence for the death of Jesus, and there is no evidence to corroborate the Quran's claim that it was another man who died in his place. Con is using Quranic verses as proof of the Quran, that's circular reasoning. That's like me saying, Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says he is the Son of God; Jesus died on the cross, proof, the Bible says so. Con doesn't accept that kind of argument for the Bible, but he accepts it for the Quran. His double standard is obvious. Sura 30:2-4 says: "The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God." Con thinks this refers to the Romans gaining victory 3-9 years after their defeat by the Persians in the Dead Sea, which he says is the lowest place on earth. The historical fact remains that they Romans were NOT defeated in the Dead Sea, but in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, unlike the Dead Sea, it is way above sea level and is definitely not the lowest part of the earth! The Dead Sea is approximately 1,407 feet below sea level. https://en.wikipedia.org... Jerusalem, however, is roughly 2490 feet ABOVE sea level https://en.wikipedia.org... So right away this prophecy fails as to where the battle took place, so thanks Con for giving me more proof the Quran is not God's Word, and proof that Muhammad was a false prophet, because his prophecy here failed. According to Muslim scholarship this passage was supposedly "sent down" approximately around 615 AD and refers to the defeat of the Romans at the hands of the Persians. When we consult the encyclopaedias and other sources we discover that the Roman victory didn"t occur until 13 years later, not the 3-9 years stipulated by the Quran. Under Heraclius, Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march across the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of Nineveh. There, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in single combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian commander, and scattered the Persian host. A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure. Khosrow was overthrown by his son, with whom Heraclius made peace, DEMANDING ONLY THE RETURN OF THE CROSS, the captives, AND CONQUERED ROMAN TERRITORY. Returning to Constantinople in triumph, he was hailed as a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio." "Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them decisively in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh." https://en.wikipedia.org... So in 3-9 years after this prophecy was given, Rome had not yet gained victory over the Persians, thus, this was a false prophecy. God doesn't get his dates wrong. An illiterate person doesn't need divine revelation from God to learn a story and tell it. So Muhammad being illiterate is no proof that he heard the revelation of the Quran from God. Illiterate people make up stuff all the time. Quoting that the Quran says he was illiterate doesn't prove he was illiterate anymore than a Mormon quoting the Book of Mormon proves that what that book says about the illiteracy of anyone in it is true. As for the speed of light in the Quran, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide whose evidence was more in line with scientific facts. As I said, it's rather suspicious that no Muslim thought Sura 32:5 was trying to tell us the speed of light until AFTER scientists already discovered what it was. If you agree, vote Pro. This verse doesn't even say what Con said, about angels travelling at the speed of light. That was added using his 21st century imagination in order to make his holy book seem more scientific. I didn't say the whole Bible was written thousands of years before the Quran, I was talking about Isaiah 40:22, which was written by the prophet Isaiah more than 1400 years before Muhammad. Isaiah 40:22 says God STRETCHES OUT the heavens, showing the expanding universe. So Muhammad didn't need God to know this, he borrowed it from the Bible. This verse also has the earth as a circle. Even if you reject this, here's a fact: Eratosthenes living 276-194 BC, long before Muhammad, calculated the size and shape of the earth, its distance from the sun, mapped the world and climate zones using nothing but science or math, without divine revelation. https://en.wikipedia.org... "The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC" https://en.wikipedia.org... So the concept of a round earth predates Muhammad and doesn't prove one has heard from God. Shakespear wrote some beautiful poetry, so I guess you think its the word of God because its beautiful. If the Quran is beautiful to some folks, it doesn't prove its from God. Con argues that the Quran has remained unchanged, so how does that prove its God's word? The Egyptian book of the dead is unchanged, so is the BagavadGita of India. Heck, last years Nation Newspaper is unchanged but that doesn't make it from God. The contradictions and absurdities of the Quran are still in there. In round 2 Con said "according to Quran, if one can repent from worshiping the false gods before his death, other sins might be forgiven. but if you can't, polytheism will not be forgiven." So his answer was "yes," if you repent, God does forgive polytheism. But the Quran says: "."Allah FORGIVETH NOT that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else," (4:48). Also 4:116. The Quran says "Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah FORGIVES ALL SINS: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Sura 39:53) Yet it says "But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, - NEVER WILL THEIR REPENTENCE BE ACCEPTED." (Sura 3:86-91) If you agree this contradiction still stands, vote Pro. The Quran is clearly not God's Word.