The Quaran is not God's Word

Regarding Zul-qarnain finding the sun in a spring of muddy water, Con says "since it's talking about HIS understanding of the incident, how can you prove that this is against logic?! ...and when Quran says he Found it ... means that it APPEARED TO HIM that way." Notice that Con is adding his own unfounded ideas to the text of the Quran in order to make it say what it is not sayin. The text is not a first person account where Zul-qarnain says "I found the sun set in a spring of muddy water." No, this is not Zul-qarnain giving his view of what happened. This is supposedly Allah's view of what happened, which is why it speaks of Zul-qarnain in the second person as "He." As I pointed out already, "the text does not say that the sun APPEARED to be setting in a black sea or what have you. The text clearly says the Zul-Qarnain found THE PLACE where the sun actually sets and rises." Con now denies what the Quran says by claiming it only APPEARED to Zul-qarnain that he had found the sun in a spring but it wasn't actually so; but the difficulty with his argument here is that the Quran also says that "he reached THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN SET." Now, its not even possible for it to APPEAR to a man that he has reached the place where the sun sets. The sun will always appear to be far ahead of you on the horizon, so it can't even APPEAR to be in the place where you are standing. So even this is a logical impossibility! This is just a good example of Con not believing what his holy book says and twisting it to make it sound more logical by adding things that it doesn't say. That would be like me reading Alice in Wonderland and saying that the Rabbit only appeared to talk to Alice, but the story doesn't mean that it really did so. Or reading Lord of the Rings and saying the ring only appeared to Frodo to be magical, but the story doesn't really mean that. I suppose that Con believes then, that the new born baby Jesus only APPEARED to have a conversation with his mother Mary, but he really couldn't talk yet, right? But such is the nature of the mythological stories in the Quran. Sura 19:22-25, 33-34 "So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten." But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates....And peace is on me the day I was born and THE DAY I WILL DIE AND THE DAY I AM RAISED ALIVE." That is Jesus, the son of Mary."http://quran.com... So since Con's logic was, Sura 18:86, 90 was about Zul-qarnain's travels, and it therefore written from his perspective, it only APPEARED TO HIM that he had found the place where the sun sets. Now to keep this same logic, since Sura 19:22-34 talks about Mary giving birth, its only written from her perspective so it only APPEARED TO HER that the infant Jesus was talking to her. Were Mary an Zul-qarnain on LSD? Were they high on drugs? Notice that Jesus says here that he will DIE and the RAISED TO LIFE, and yet, Muslim deny that Jesus was killed and resurrected. Even though all the historical evidence we have from the first century CE from the Gospels, roman historian Tactius, Jewish historian Josephus, and most of the world's historians today unanimously agree that Jesus was crucified! So here is a case where history has proven the doctrine of Islam to be wrong. "The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judea, most probably between the years 30 and 33 AD. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as an historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources...The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[11][12] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[11] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[13] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[14] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[15] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[4] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified....An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written sometime after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD." https://en.wikipedia.org... So Islam is clearly not from God because it teaches against historical facts that we know to be true, and it contradicts itself: the Quran claiming Jesus would die an be resurrected, but Muslims denying that it happened even though we have proof. Even the Babylonian Talmud talks about Jesus' death in the first centuy AD, so who should we believe? All the most ancient sources for the life of Christ, or a man named Muhammad who came along 700 years later, who never met or knew Jesus, claiming to know what really happened without any proof? Con says: "Islam means to be obedient to God. as since all prophets and all faithful people of all times were so, they were all Muslims." Well, the word Christian means "follower of Christ," so all of Jesus' dsicples then would have to be Christains by your own logic, yet you say they were Mulims. Anyone can claim to be obedient to God, but that doesn't make them a Muslim. To be a Muslim you have to follow the doctrines taught in Islam. There was no Quran carrying Islamic doctrine anywhere in history before the 7th century. Moses and David worshipped Yahwerh, not Allah. They spoke Hebrew, not Arabic. These are known facts. In fact, the Jesus taught by Islam never existed. His name, according to the Quran, was I'sa (Al Imran 3:50, 84; Al Ma-idah 5:48) The real Jesus was never called Isa. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Iesous in Greek. Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua", which means "the Lord is salvation". However Yehoshua" is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name. There is absolutely no evidence from the first century or at any time that Jesus ever received a book from God as is claimed in the Quran. (Al Am an 6:90) Muslims are trying to claim figures in Jewish and Christain history were Muslims without any evidence to support these claims in their Quran. Con: "as the prophets who call themselves the First Muslim, it means among the people who they are sent to guide, they are the most obedient towards god and the first one in their people who truly believe in God." When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee."... When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the FIRST to believe." S. 7:143 Now, according to Con's explanation, this means Moses was the FIRST among his people to believe, right? And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: Suckle him and, when thou fearest for him, then cast him into the river and fear not nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto thee and shall make him (one) of Our messengers. S. 28:7 In the case of Moses" mother, she clearly received divine inspiration (and believed and obeyed it) before God spoke to Moses. So this again is a contradiction. And the fact that Con is just making this stuff up as an excuse is seen in the fact that Aaron already believed in Moses' time, and nowhere does the Quran recount when Moses first believed before Aaron. (Sura 26:12-17) The Quran also talks about Muslims in Egypt in the days of Moses who believed BEFORE Moses, so he was not the first, contradiction again. (40:28-35, 38-46 Y. Ali) Con says that I'm quoting from Sunni books about Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was 9 years old, so what proof did he give that Sunni sources are unreliable? None. Sunni far outnumber Shias anyway. Also he claims there are different ages given for her, but what sources did he cite? None! Even somewhere between 9 and 19 still makes Muhammad a pervert. What right does a grown man have sexing a teenage girl? Yet this marriage is supposed to be approved by God! He says "a single person quoting something about an incident in Islam is never taken as truth." Its not a single person, but many Muslim historians and scholars of Islam like Sahih Al-Bukari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Nasa'I, Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Ibn Hisham, Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir and many other respected Muslim historians. http://www.answering-islam.org... You seem to be saying, it doesn't happen with most Muslims today, therefore it never happened with Muhammad. That's like denying slavery happened because its not practiced by most Christians today. So even if most Mulsims are not pedophiles, that doesn't disprove the histocial evidence that Muhammad was one. Con tries to reconcile the Quran's conflicting creation accounts by saying Allah made the heaven and earth out of nothing, then made man out of dust. If man was made from DUST, then he wasn't made from NOTHING as the Quran claims he was. (19:67; 3:59) Creating heaven and earth from nothing doesn't show man was made from nothing because heaven and earth are not men. I'll finish my rebuttal next round