Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

Concerning the food for people in hell, how is this a contradiction? Surah 88:6﴾They shall have no food except bitter dry thorns)Yusuf Ali's commentary: "The root-meaning implies again the idea of humiliation. It is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither give fattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger,-a fit plant for Hell, like Zaqqum." Nowhere in this verse, may I add, does it say "foul pus", it only says "washing of wounds."(referring to Surah 69:36-or hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds.") And it's really taken out of context when people actually think that people in hell ACTUALLY eat these things. It is rather symbolic of the food that will be given; the product of their wrongdoings is this foul pus per say. Quote-"the term "only food" is symbolic to the pain and anguish they will suffer, not the food that they will literally eat and chew. Quote'"When it says nor hath he any food, this doesn't refer to the food that you chew and digest literally, this refers to the product of denial and humiliation of all the evil deeds which people did in the world" http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com... Surah Waqiah 56:52: "Ye will surely taste of the Tree of Zaqqum." Quote-(In this verse, it does NOT say that they will ONLY eat Zaqqum. The term "only" doesn't exist in this verse. Also, this will also be what the people in hell will eat literally and taste. In Surah Ghashiyah 88:6 & Surah Waqiah 56:52, it is not symbollic meaning they will literally eat food, In contrast, Surah Haqqah 69:36 is symbollic and will be the pain and torment (which they will be "fed") which is what the people in hell will suffer, so Surah Haqqah 69:36 is symbollic to the pain and humiliation the people in Hell will suffer, for all the evil deeds people did.) http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com... This could also refer to the types of food given in different levels of hell depending upon the punishment. Surah 15:43-44 says "And surely hell is the promised place for them all--(44) For it has seven gates. For each gate is an appointed portion of them." "And verily, Hell Is the promised abode For them all! To it are seven Gates: For each of those Gates Is a (special) class (Of sinners) assigned. (The Noble Quran, 15:43-44)" After that He spread out the earth" does not mean that Allah created the earth after the creation of the heavens, but it is a style of expression just like our saying after making mention of something: "Then this is noteworthy." The object is not to express the sequence of occurrence between the two things but to draw attention from the first to the second thing although both may exist together. Several instances of this style are found in the Qur'an, e.g. in Surah Al-Qalam it is said: "(He is) oppressive, and after that, ignoble by birth." etc etc from http://www.quranenglish.com... Now sense I've answered these so called "contradictions", I would now like to point your attention to the Bible. This is the world's oldest Bible explained to have MANY alterations in it compared today's Bible. http://www.youtube.com... Also, take a look at a quote from a New Testament Scholar on the Bible. Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies. The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes. "When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'" The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief. Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion". http://news.bbc.co.uk... O----------Biblical Contradictions::::: please read one of the many arguments here against Bible inerrancy. http://www.auburn.edu... For example. the potter's field. Quote from the above website http://www.auburn.edu... "An example of chronological difference involves John the Baptists' sending his disciples to ask whether Jesus really was the Christ. When did this event happen? According to Matthew, first Jesus calmed the storm (8:23-27); healed the Gadarene demonaics (8:28-34), the dead girl and sick woman (9:18-26); and sent out his twelve disciples (10:1-42). "After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee" (11:1, NIV). Following this we read that "John heard in prison what Christ was doing" and sent his disciples to ask Jesus whether he really was the Christ (11:2-6 NIV). By contrast, in Luke's account John sent his disciples to Jesus (7:18-23) before Jesus calmed the storm (8:22-25); healed the Gadarene demonaic (8:26-39), the dead girl and sick woman (8:40-56); and sent out the twelve (9:1-6), adding that John had already been killed by the time of the sending of the twelve (9:7-9), a point corroborated by Mark (6:7-29). This type of chronological discrepancy is very common in the Gospel accounts, but is not problematic from the standpoint that it was not the writers' intent to convey an exact historical chronology." -------------The above is a quote from the above website------------------------------ An example of a "which Bible is God's word out of so many versions", as Ahmed Deedat puts it, is comparing two copies of the RSV, one 1952 and the other a 1970's version, they'll read word for word the same, but they are VERSIONS. They also take out Luke 24:51 and Mark 16:19 where it mentions Jesus' ascension into heaven. It, as Ahmed Deedat says, is thrown out as a fabrication. The RSV, in the introduction, says the KJV has grave defects and therefore they revised it. They took out this verse, yet the KJV has these verses. (I TOOK THIS INFORMATION OUT OF A DEBATE WITH AHMED DEEDAT AND STANLEY SJOBERG) I think I have made my point. The Quran is the direct and unchanged word of God while the Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy with the oldest copy in a translated language and has been altered.