Hi Nun de plume

I have already answered you on the apocrypha and the remainder. You are just plain wrong on all. Now stop posting repeat error to me. Go learn a little.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Samia

YOUR POST IS WRONG, you said,

I could say the same about you, because in fact I did not ask you to read the quraan, but this forum and its articles to know who you are discussing with. However, you choose what to answer to and ignore what does not suit you, although our posts are dwarfed by your boringly long , repeated posts and OP most of the time. So, let's be more civilized; and if one gets tired, it is better to keep away from others than mocking their names and using unacceptable language. And alaways remember "LOVE THY ENEMY".

I read the Qur?an long before I ever heard of this forum.

Second, I know who I am discussing with; to wit, members of Islam and agnostics.

Third, I neither mock others or use unacceptable language.

Fourth, I ignore nothing of importance, but of course do not bother with none pertinent stuff and why should I as it is irrelevant. But I do notice others shy away from relevant items of importance not to their liking.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Samia

First, I have read the Qur?an five times, 4 in English and one in another language which should be readily apparent to you from my post.

Second, I already well know the Quran, but some of you have almost no knowledge of the Bible such as one who writes under the French name of a pen. Also, early on I had very considerable exposure to Islam ? Sunni ? and detested what I saw with respect animal abuse by an Imam.

Third, that is the reasonable language of a researcher who after 7 hours in one day gets very tired of silly questions by a poster under the French name of a pen. Such as the silly question where he posted a bunch of apocrypha he cut/pasted from somewhere apparently without reading even what it was and asked why they were not included in the Bible which is about as silly as asking why Salman Rushdie?s ?Satanic Verse? is added to the Qur?an and this followed another equally silly post on the first part of Genesis which showed his complete lack of knowledge and that he had not read my previous post to him on the same subject. I do not indulge in such silliness and do not expect other adults to do so.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Nun de plume
You are not trying to learn but throw up any nonsense you can find that you do not understand. I post to assist all with respect to learning the truth per John 832, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV). You should start trying to learn.

As I told you before,

You need to learn the Bible instead of making dumb post that just show your lack of comprehension of same. I would recommend that you immediately start studying the Bible. To that end I have put together an 18 part introductory study of the Bible, called ?follow the Christ? which can be read at,

18 Part Follow Christ Bible Study at,

http//religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=jesus&thread=1182482138&page=1

Now do you want to study the Bible or not?

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Part Two of A Challenging Addition On The Subject of The Apocrypha

The Book of Jasher includes details about antediluvian patriarchs which are confirmed by modern revelation. The question arises of how the author of Jasher could have known specific facts from before the Great Flood, such as Cainan becoming very wise when he was forty years old. These correlations attest that it was composed from exceedingly ancient reliable sources.....The book is a history of the world from the creation until the period of the Judges in Israel. It contains much more information than is found in Genesis for that same period, which makes very interesting reading and clears up many confusing issues in the Bible. It is written mostly as a secular history, but it does contain many references to what God was doing. It is similar to the Books of Joshua through Chronicles in the Bible which describe many historical events such as battles and wars, but which also point out the hand of God in the affairs of men.

Joshua 1013

It is easy to find the place where the book of Joshua apparently quotes this Book of Jasher
"And when they were smiting, the day was declining toward evening, and Joshua said in the sight of all the people, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, until the nation shall have revenged itself upon its enemies.
"And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Joshua, and the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens, and it stood still six and thirty moments, and the moon also stood still and hastened not to go down a whole day." (Jasher 8863-64)
2 Samuel 118
The reason is that it is David himself who was quoting the Book of Jasher, rather than the Book of Jasher merely recording David's actions. Jasher contains the injunction that the children of Judah should learn the art of the bow and David considered the Book of Jasher of such high authority that if it commanded to teach the art of the bow, he was determined to do it. That puts an entirely different light on the subject. Here is the actual quote, from the last words of Jacob to his son Judah
"Only teach thy sons the bow and all weapons of war, in order that they may fight the battles of their brother who will rule over his enemies." (Jasher 569)
Agreement with the Bible. Most reviewers grant that there are no significant disagreements between Book of Jasher and the Bible. In fact, one excellent new annotated reprint adds several appendices discussing clarifications made in Jasher. The few disagreements between Jasher and the Bible are insufficient to disqualify it from being the authentic lost book mentioned in the scriptures.

THE BOOK OF JASPER WHILE HAVING MERITS IS QUESTIONABLE

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha - There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefitted. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen." (D.&C. 911-6)

The Book of Jasher contradicts the Bible in many places, examples follow

Jasher 135 says that Abram went to the land of Canaan at the age of 50 then back to Haran and back to Canaan at age 75, Genesis 124 states that Abram was 75 when he departed Haran.
Jasher 189 states that one of the angels tells Abraham that Sarah will have a son, but Gen. 1716 says that God told Abraham.
Jasher 2244-45 says the Lord got the idea of presenting Isaac as an offering from Isaac's boast to Ishmael. We know, of course, that God is sovereign and as it says in Gen. 221-2 & 12 that the Lord was testing Abraham.
Genesis 285 states that Isaac sent Jacob to Padan-aram unto Laban but Jasher 2911 says that he fled to the house of Eber and hid there for 14 years.
Jasher 479 says Isaac dies, according to the chronology of Jasher, Joseph was in Egypt but in Gen. 3529 Isaac died before Joseph had his dreams.
Simeon could not be bound in Jasher 5137 but in Genesis. 4224 Simeon is bound before their eyes.
There are also many areas that are completely unbiblical.
In Jasher 4230-41, Rachel talks to Joseph from the grave. This is of course necromancy and is an abomination unto the Lord (Deuteronomy 1811-12).
According to 5318-22 Benjamin used a "map (or chart) of stars" to find Joseph. Deuteronomy 1810 forbids this. It is an abomination to be "an observer of times" (astrologer).
Judah threatens Joseph 541-68 with annulations but Genesis 4414-34 is a plea for Benjamin's release.
Chapter 71 of Jasher states that Moses was 18 years old when he left Egypt. (Could this be Rabbinical tradition?) He didn't go to Midian but to Cush and becomes king (7234-36) and is king over Cush for forty years (732), then he goes to Midian where Reuel puts him in prison for 10 years because Reuel thinks Moses is wanted by the Holy Cow Pud, Batman. In the book of Acts (723-30) Stephen, inspired by the Holy Spirit, stated the Moses was in Egypt for 40 Years before going to Midian for another 40 years.
Jasher 813-4 claims that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt for 210 years whereas the Scripture says in Exodus 1240-41 it was 430 years.
Jasher 8140-41says that all but Pharaoh perished in the Red Sea. Pharaoh thanks the Lord and the Lord sends an angel who casts him upon the land of Ninevah where Pharaoh reigned for a long time. Scripture (Exodus 1423 & 2 states that all perished.
Jasher 321-40 -- Esau comes to harm Jacob but angels of the Lord scare Esau, v.55 Esau fears Jacob. Genesis 333 Jacob bows seven times to Esau.
Jasher 4335 -- Isaac went from Hebron to comfort Jacob, his son, because Joseph is dead (sold). Gen. 3527-29 Isaac died before Joseph even dreamed his dreams.
Jasher 8138 -- "And the Waters of the sea were divided into twelve parts...." Exodus 1422 "And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left."

Therefore, like the other Apocrypha books such as Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 & 2 Macabees they contradict the books of the divinely inspired Bible canon and 2 Macabees even promotes the un-scriptural practice of the worship of the dead. So while it is the only Apocrypha book ever quoted in the Bible it clearly is not divinely inspired like the other books of the Apocrypha and does NOT belong in the Bible; whereas the Apocrypha books the apostate church saw fit at their Council of Trent to add to their Bible have much less to recommend them.

Your Friend Iris89,

Hi Nun de plume

Stop posting silly questions and go do a little research - study. Now here is your answer why they did not make it or short and simple they were not inspired

Bible Canon - A Challenging Addition On The Subject of The Apocrypha

INTRODUCTION

This addition to my writing , "Bible Canon' is meant to stimulate and get all thinking on why those who added to Bible canon at the Council of Trent in 1545 A.D. were in error in more than one way. The usual argument against adding some of the Apocrypha to the Bible is

Usual arguments given for not putting any of the Apocrypha in the Bible.

1. Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don't know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
   .

2. The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.

3. Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 1245-46).

4. Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith.

They were never included en tote in the canon by the church until the Reformation. At that time Rome officially canonized a particular list (not the full list) of the books of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, the fourth session, April, 1546, more than 1500 years after the books were written. These books supported the doctrine of salvation by works and prayers for the dead only 29 years after Luther posted his 95 Theses. This was the first occasion that an ecumenical council (as opposed to local or provincial council) actually ruled on the canon.

To be precise, the Apocrypha was not taken out, it was added in. It had, however, held a very respected position in church history, but its place in the canon has always been tenuous.

Now just what is the Apocrypha?

It is "The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocannonical (later or second canon) books. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent (which also pronounces anathema (excommunication from the church) on any who reject them."

Let's look in a little deeper into the Apocrypha with regard to what it is and how it was adopted as part of the Catholic Bible

? The Apocrypha does not present itself as inspired. The author of 2 Maccabees says that his book is the abridgement of another man's work (2 Maccabees 223). He concludes the book, saying, "If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do" (2 Maccabees 153 . Mediocre is a good description of the Apocrypha. Despite its historical value, it promotes questionable ethics, fanciful legends, and doctrine that contradicts Scripture.
? The Jews of Palestine never accepted the Apocrypha as part of sacred Scripture. Neither was there a Jewish prophet living during the time in which the Apocrypha was written (300-30 B.C.).
? Jesus and the New Testament writers did not treat the Apocrypha as inspired. Though the New Testament quotes virtually every book of the Old Testament, there is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha.
? The early church as a whole never accepted the Apocrypha as inspired. Moreover, many Christian leaders spoke against the Apocrypha, including Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem.
? Even the Roman Catholic Church did not dogmatically declare the Apocrypha to be inspired until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholic priest Father. H. J. Schroeder, a translator of the decrees of the Council of Trent writes, "The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures." ii The purpose of the Council of Trent was to counteract the Protestant Reformation. Protestants had rejected the Apocrypha. Rome reacted by dogmatically declaring most of the Apocrypha to be inspired. The Apocrypha also included teachings that could help Rome defend its doctrine against growing Protestant criticism. For instance, Martin Luther had forcefully argued against Rome's practice of selling pardons from purgatory. Tobit 129 supports the practice, stating, "...almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin." Even some Catholic writers acknowledge that Trent's decision to accept the Apocrypha as inspired is problematic. Iii

CATHOLIC CHURCH POSITION ON

The Catholic church's position on the Apocrypha is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows

Name and Notion
Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek apokryphos, hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, "Apocryphon", is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation "uncanonical" with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures -- one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church -- applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha".

The original and proper sense of the term Apocryphal as applied to the pretended sacred books was early obscured. But a clue to it may be recognized in the so-called Fourth Book of Esdras, which relates that Estrus (Era) by divine inspiration composed ninety-four books. Of these, twenty-four were restorations of the sacred literature of the Israelites which had perished in the Captivity; they were to be published openly, but the remaining were to be guarded in secret for the exclusive use of the wise (cf. Dan., ix, 4, 9, where the prophet is bidden to shut up and seal an inspired book until an appointed time). Accordingly it may be accepted as highly probable that in its original meaning an Apocryphal writing had no unfavorable import, but simply denoted a composition which claimed a sacred origin, and was supposed to have been hidden for generations, either absolutely, awaiting the due time of its revelation, or relatively, inasmuch as knowledge of it was confined to a limited esoteric circle. However, the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity. These are the negative aspects of the modern application of the name; on its positive side it is properly employed only of a well defined class of literature, putting forth scriptural or quasi-scriptural pretensions, and which originated in part among the Hebrews during the two centuries preceding Christ and for a space after, and in part among Christians, both orthodox and heterodox, in the early centuries of our era. .

Remember, "Ancient literature, especially in the Orient, used methods much more free and elastic than those permitted by our modern and Occidental culture. Pseudographic composition was in vogue among the Jews in the two centuries before Christ and for some time later. The attribution of a great name of the distant past to a book by its real author, who thus effaced his own personality, was, in some cases at least, a mere literary fiction which deceived no one except the ignorant. This holds good for the so-called "Wisdom of Solomon", written in Greek and belonging to the Church's sacred canon. In other cases, where the assumed name did not stand as a symbol of a type of a certain kind of literature, the intention was not without a degree of at least objective literary dishonesty."

As clearly shown from The Catholic Encyclopedia, the so called greatest Bible scholar of the Catholic church who even split some of the books of the Jewish canon into two books, St. Jerome, did not consider that any of the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible, The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible," He was an astute scholar of the Bible an undoubtedly well knew the free and elastic form writers of the time of uninspired books used so therefore would even doubt the historical of the books of the Apocrypha.

THE BIG MYSTERY

Now the Apocrypha actually consist of many more books than those officially put into the Catholic Bible canon by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. The BIG QUESTION is why some were included by the Council of Trent and many more were not. The Catholic position of course is they had MERIT and the others did not. However, is that really the case or was the addition for political reasons? Some facts will now be presented and you be the judge

As previously stated it is well known that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote from any of them as follows

Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th? century. We don't know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
.

Also, it is known that

The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.

Some books? promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 1245-46).

Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith.?

With all this said, the obvious appears to be the addition to the Catholic Bible should be viewed strictly as the political output of a church council held by an apostate church in defiance of scripture, "18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book." (Revelation 2218-19 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible).

Now let's take a serious look at the MERITS of any book of the Apocrypha with regard to its merits to be included in the Bible. As previously stated, Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from any of the Apocrypha nor did the new testament (NT) mention any of the Apocrypha so clearly no merit for including it in the Bible. However, when we look at the old testament (OT) we actually find one book of the Apocrypha specifically mentioned by divinely inspired Bible writers

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foes. Is this not recorded in the Book of Jashar? The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course." (Joshua 1013 The New American Bible, World Catholic Press, approved at the Vatican on Sept. 18, 1970 by the Pope]

"which is recorded in the Book of Jashar to be taught to the Judahites He sang." (2 Samuel 118 The New American Bible, World Catholic Press, approved at the Vatican on Sept. 18, 1970 by the Pope]

This is also recorded in the Protestant Bibles with the Book of Jashar alternately called/translated as Book of the Just and Book of the Upright in some cases. See

" And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 1013 AV)

"So the sun, was still, and, the moon, stayed, until a nation should be avenged on its fees. Is not, that, written in the Book of the Upright? So then the sun stayed in the middle of the heavens, and hastened not to go in, about a whole day." (Joshua 1013 Rothrham)

" (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)" (2 Samuel 118 AV)

"and he saith to teach the sons of Judah 'The Bow;' lo, it is written on the book of the Upright -" (2 Samuel 118 Youngs)

And in translations in other languages such as Spanish

"Y el sol se detuvo y la luna se par?, hasta que el pueblo se hubo vengado de sus enemigos. ?No est? escrito esto en el libro de Jaser? El sol se detuvo en medio del cielo, y no se apresur? a ponerse casi un d?a entero." (Joshua 1013 RVA89)

"y mand? que ense?asen a los hijos de Jud? el Canto del Arco. He aqu? que est? escrito en el libro de Jaser" (2 Samuel 118 RVA89)

However, the BIG MYSTERY herein is why the one Apocrypha book specifically mentioned in divinely inspired canonical books of the Bible and by St. Jerome in his Bible translation was NOT included in the uninspired books of the Apocrypha that the Council of Trent of an apostate church included in their Bible by council decree. This is especially salient as it is the only book of the Apocrypha actually mentioned in the Bible. If any book of the Apocrypha had ANY MERIT, the Book of Jasher had it.

Even though it is specifically mentioned as previously shown in all Catholic and non-Catholic Bible Translations, it does not even have listing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, WHY?

THE BOOK OF JASHER

Well, let's take a cursory look at the features of the Book of Jasher

The Rev. Thomas Scott had this to say on the Book of Jasher

Upright. "The Book of Jasher," rendered in the LXX. "the Book of the Upright One," by the Vulgate "the Book of Just Ones," was probably a kind of national sacred song-book, a collection of songs in praise of the heroes of Israel, a "book of golden deeds," a national anthology. We have only two specimens from the book,

1. the words of Joshua which he spake to the Lord at the crisis of the battle of Beth-horon #Jos 1012,13
2. "the Song of the Bow," that beautiful and touching mournful elegy which David composed on the occasion of the death of Saul and Jonathan #2Sa 118-27

• Jasher. or, the upright. So LXX. Targum, {siphra deooritha,} "the book of the law;" the Arabic, "the book of Ashee this is the book of Samuel." This book was probably a collection of divine odes, written to commemorate remarkable events.

The International Standard Encyclopedia had this to say on the Book of Jasher

The title of an ancient Hebrew national song-book (literally, "book of the righteous one&quot from which two quotations are made in the Old Testament

(1) Joshua 1012-14, the command of Joshua to the sun and moon, "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon. .... Is not this written in the book of Jashar?" (see BETH-HORON; Septuagint in this place omits the reference to Jashar); and

(2) 2 Samuel 18, "the song of the bow," or lament of David over Saul and Jonathan.

(3) Some conjecture a third extract in 1 Kings 812, "Then spake Solomon, Yahweh hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." The words of Yahweh are quoted by Septuagint in 853 as "written in the book of the song" (en
biblio tes odes), and it is pointed out that the words "the song" (in Hebrew ha-shir) might easily be a corruption of ha-yashar. A similar confusion ("song" for "righteous&quot may explain the fact that the Holy Cow Pud, Batman Syriac of Joshua has for a title "the book of praises or hymns." The book evidently was a well-known one, and may have been a gradual collection of religious and national songs. It is conjectured that it may have included the So of Deborah (Judges 5), and older pieces now found in the Pentateuch (e.g. Genesis 423,14; 925-27; 2727-29); this, however, is uncertain. On the curious theories and speculations of the rabbis and others about the book (that it was the Book of the Law, of Genesis, etc.), with the fantastic reconstructive theory of Dr. Donaldson in his Jasbar, see the full article in HDB.

MERITS OF THE BOOK OF JASHER

The Bible reference quoting Jasher in 2 Samuel 118 is taken from Jasher 569. The reference in Joshua 1013 comes from Jasher 8864. The book of Jasher also mentions books of the Bible Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 1 Chronicles.

In Jasher 227-31 Lemech kills Cain and then Tubal Cain by accident. Could this explain Genesis 423-24 as a lament and not a boast?

Another example is Jasher 418 - "And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took of the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of the animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth was corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals." This may explain the statement of God in Genesis 65 which says, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Consider for a moment what we read in Jasher 58-9 - "For thus saith the Lord, behold I give you a period of one hundred and twenty years; if you will turn to me and forsake your evil ways, then will I also turn away form the evil which I told you, and it shall not exist, saith the Lord. And Noah and Methuseleh spake all the words of the Lord to the sons of men, day after day, constantly speaking to them.
Jasher says, Noah and Methuseleh preach for 120 years before the flood. But there is more. In Jasher 515-16 Noah marries Enochs' daughter. "...Noah went and took a wife, and he chose Naamah the daughter of Enoch, and whe was five hundred and eighty years old. And Noah was four hundred and ninety years old, when he took Naamah for a wife."

Could it be possible that Nimrod was Amraphel? Jasher 116 says, "Nimrod dwelt in Babel, and he there renewed his reign over the rest of his subjects, and he reigned securely, and the subjects and princes called his name Amraphel, saying that at the tower his princes and men fell through his means." Genesis 141 & 9 identifies Amraphel as the King of Shinar.
Could Shem have been Melchizedek (Gen. 141 ? Jasher 1611 certainly points us in that direction. It says, "And Adonizedek King of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, whent out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in the valley of Melech." It is an interesting possibility to consider that Abraham and his descendants traveled back and forth to visit Shem and Eber.
In Jasher 751-20 we read that the children of Ephraim, son of Joseph, lose all but 10 men in a war in Gath. It certainly seems possible that this could coincide with 1 Chronicles 721-23. . logosresourcepages.org/jasher.htm]

Here's just a few of the exciting things you will read in Jasher that do not appear in the Bible.
? A much more detailed account of the wickedness that was occurring before the flood at the time of Noah.
? A terrifying account of the fear that gripped Noah, his family and all the animals on the ark as the earth was being destroyed.
? A detailed account of the life of Nimrod. Jasher records that Nimrod was the builder of Babylon and that he led the world astray through sorcery and witchcraft. Nimrod also established the first one world dictatorship and reigned over all the sons of Noah. Furthermore, Nimrod is mentioned as the one who organized the construction of the tower of Babel.

See Part Two

Hi Nun de plume

I did not answer as there is no contradiction, only a lack of understanding by you of the principle of agency as put forth in the Bible. Let?s look at the facts a little in-depth as you have so little comprehension of the Bible

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.Trinitarians Do NOT Understand The Jewish Law of Agencies

1 Timothy 25, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus," (Confraternity Edition of The New Testament; CETNT).

Some may find this a difficult concept, but is is similar to someone giving another a Limited Power of Attorney making him an agent to carry out an assigned task as did His Father (YHWH) at 1 Corinthians 1522-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." Clearly showing they were distinct individuals and that the Father (YHWH) was the superior one; hence they were not CO-EQUAL.

Actually this is in keeping with an ancient law or custom commonly known as the Jewish Law of Agencies as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder).

It is important to understand this law of agencies since this will enhance our understanding of many key texts, such as why the Judges and angels were called "God" (Ex. 216; 228; Ps. 85; 821). Many more instances could be provided, but brevity is in order here. John 854 drives this law of agency home, "Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God." (CETNT), showing that Jesus (Yeshua) was his Father's (YHWH's) agent, and he sought not his own glory, but glory from his Father (YHWH). Therefore, Jesus (Yeshua) could say as he did at John 1140, "Jesus said to her, 'Have I not told thee that if thou believe thou shalt behold the glory of God?'" (CETNT). Even Satan the Devil recognized this, Jesus (Yeshua), as God's (YHWH's) agent, 2 Corinthians 44, "In their case, the god of this world has blinded their unbelieving minds, that they should not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible); thus he is trying to blind the minds of the unbelieving to prevent them from recognizing this truth. We must be constantly on guard against the imaginations of Satan the Devil and his attempts to get all men to believe God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrines of men such as the Duality and the Trinity and be noble like the Beroeans, Acts 1711, "Now these were of a nobler character than those of Thessalonica and they received the word with great eagerness, studying the Scriptures every day to see whether these things were so." (CETNT)

You need to learn the Bible instead of making dumb post that just show your lack of comprehension of same. I would recommend that you immediately start studying the Bible. To that end I have put together an 18 part introductory study of the Bible, called ?follow the Christ? which can be read at,

18 Part Follow Christ Bible Study at,

http//religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=jesus&thread=1182482138&page=1

Now stop making dumb statements and questions and go learn a little.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Nun de plume

As I told you before,

Simple, anyone who comprehended the Bible would well know that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, etc., the creator of all there is, did NOT CREATE WICKEDNESS that he abhors ? your question was answered.

Same goes for your current post.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi OPF

First, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is NOT his Father, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, creator of all there is.

Second, The definitive answer rest with him whom the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, appointed the judge of mankind per John 522, ?For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son? (Authorized King James Bible; AV), and not I. Think about it.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi OPF

Figure it out for yourself, but I will give you a hint from the Inspired Word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, creator of all there is found at 1 Timothy 25, ?For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;? (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi OPF

Now what would make Starjade any more an infidel than yourself? The Inspired Word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, the creator of all there is clearly says at John 146, ?Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.? (American Standard Version; ASV), so think about this reality per John 832, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi OPF
Starjade is not a Christian and fits neither definition of ?Christian.? As I said elsewhere

Many in false religions of many and various types from those with false gods such as the Trinity have mental blinders on and can not see the truth with respect their respective religions. But first let's clarify some terms I shall be using in what to some will be a special sense or usage.

Apostate = any religious group including all denominations and/or sects of that group who worship false gods or goddesses of any type.

Christian = a term used in two very distinct and mutually exclusive ways. (1) A genuine (true) worshiper who worships the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, etc., the creator of all there is, in strict conformity with Exodus 203, an absolute monotheist, a real follower of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ in practice and not just in name. (2) One who belongs to any of the denominations and/or sects that fell away from genuine (true) Christianity after the passing of the apostles that was foretold by 2Thessalonians 23, "let no man beguile you in any wise for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition," (American Standard Version; ASV), one who worships other god(s) not mentioned as a true god in the Bible such as the Trinity.

False religion = One who does not worship the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, etc., the creator of all there is, but worships some other god or god(s) or idols or goddesses.

All religions believe they are correct, yet they are all different; thus, they can not all be correct - only one can be., which can be read in its entirety at,

http//religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=babylonthegreat&thread=1190172986

Now, carefully note the two entirely different definitions of a ?Christian.?

Definition 2 above is for what commonly passes as ?Christian? but is not as they are not genuine (true) followers of Christ, believe in a false ?three-in-one-god? ? the Trinity, and engage in worldly wars, etc. Very similar to Islam.

Definition 1 deals with the genuine (true) followers that are monotheistic and ONLY worship one god, Almighty God (YHWH) the creator of all there is, do NOT engage in worldly wars, etc.

As you should see, you were in error with respect understanding reality, the truth, per John 832, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

However, Starjade is an expert on Islam.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi OPF

Yes, he exist and he is Almighty God (YHWH) creator of all there is.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

hi everyone

Here is something that should interest all.

]]

your friend in Christ Iris89

Renown German Researcher, Christoph Luxenberg, Reveals Qur?an a Knockoff Of The Bible

The Renown German Researcher, Christoph Luxenberg, a world renown linguistic scholar, in his book clearly reveals that the Quran is nothing but a distorted knockoff of the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, the Bible. Here is just one example, but the interested individual can find many many pages of similars in his book.

<<<?Let's first look at what the Quran (Koran) says at Sura 347

Sura 347, "She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "GOD thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, `Be,' and it is."

And, Sura 348 says, ""He will teach him the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel." Interestingly here the Quran (Koran) actually speaks of the first five (5) books of the Bible, the Torah; yet today many Muslims rail against the Bible from which their book the Quran (Koran) was plagiarized from.

Now the Bible says at Luke 135, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God." (American Standard Version; ASV).?>>>.

A short review of his book can be found in, "HUGOYE JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES," book review of Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschl?sselung der Qur'ansprache. Berlin, Germany Das Arabische Buch, First Edition, 2000. Pp. ix + 306, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2003.

But to really get specific facts in great detail with advanced literary analysis one must read his book of 306 pages.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

The Quran Trashed by Caliph Uthman

INTRODUCTION

Members of Islam love to falsely claim that the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, has been corrupted and that the Quran has not, but this is a LIE.

From earliest of times many versions were in circulation that did NOT agree with each other. Caliph Uthman wanted to eliminate this situation, but the way he did ensured the permanent corruption of the Quran by eliminating all checks and balances. He made an ?official? version, and burned all others to prevent cross checking for errors and corruption; whereas, with the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, the Bible, there are over 30,000 ancient Manuscripts, Codex?s, fragments, and scrolls that permit checking for errors and corruption?s and which make possible the correction of any corruption.

This article will go in-depth with regard to the impossibility that the Quran is without corruption and highlight why it must be corrupt beyond any possibility of repair.

THE EARLY QURANIC SITUATION BEFORE CALIPH UTHMAN

Islam's 'history' claims that in 30 AH, some 18 years after Muhammad's death, during Caliph 'Uthman's reign, there was much contention amongst certain followers of Islam concerning the recitation of the Qur'an ].

It is recorded that he commanded copies to be made of one consonantal symbol text, and sent these to the centres of the Islamic empire with the command that all texts that varied from those copies were to be burnt. the Suhuf (pages) of Abu Bakr (ra) that were with Hafsa (ra). the copy was prepared by Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah..., Said..., and Abdur-Rahman Harith bin Hisham. Copies were made and distributed, 2 of these copies can today be found in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul and in Tashkent." (What is The Qur'an?, Al Khalifah Publications)]].

"During the time of 'Uthman differences in reading the Qur'an became obvious, and after consultation with the Companions, 'Uthman had a standard copy prepared from the suhuf of Abu Bakr kept with Hafsa at that time.

The following is the report transmitted in Sahih Bukhari
"Narrated Anas bin Malik Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to 'Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Set this people right before they differ about the Book (Qur'an), as the Jews and the Christians did before'. Then 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may copy the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsah sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zayd bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt...."" .

CALIPH UTHMAN?S SOLUTION

Caliph Uthman came up with a ?solution? with regard to these differences that rendered any future checking of corruption of the Qur?an impossible. He burnt all other copies to prevent cross checking for corruption. One Encyclopedia says, <<<? There is no proof of purity - yes, the Qur'an has remained unchanged since the time of Uthman but prior to him various versions of the Qur'an existed. This is a fact.

The reason for the existence of the various versions was that Mohammed's saying were NOT written but commited to memory alone. It is only since Islamic scholars "harmonised" the various verions of the Qur'an as ordered by Uthman that the Qur'an has remained unchanged.

perhaps; but there is no shame in that. And your faith in man's ability to memorise is misplaced.

As said above - the Qur'an when commited to the memory of men was subject to change and variation. It was due to this fact that the Caliph Uthman decreed that the various records be harmonised and written. And all the prior text were destroyed by fire. So just be honest - and

If EVERY Qur'an on the earth were to be destroyed - and if the Qur'an were to be transmitted by memorisation alone - in 100 years there would be 100's, if not 1,000's, of variations in the text.

IS only one version of the Qur'an. But that fact is there WERE many versions. If there were not then the Caliph Uthman would never have gathered a council of Islamic scholars to harmonise the differing version to come up with a standard.

And the fact that it is in Arabic is neither here nor there. God can speak any language. Nothing special bout Arabic or any other language for that matter.

"Please show us the different versions you have insinuated". This is no "insinuation" but a fact that is well known to Imams and Islamic scholars. The fact of the matter is that the Caliph Uthman ordered the burning of ALL pre-existant Qur'an - an order which was carried out - again a fact know to Islamic scholars.

"I await the different versions"...... stupidity. As you very well know they were all destroyed by the command of Caliph Uthman. And what happens if a Christian or some other poor soul happens to deface or destroy the Qur'an ? they get executed!! Was Caliph Utham executed for the same? NO!! So were is Islamic justice??>>>.

So given this course of events, it can be seen there is no possibility that the Qur?an can be ?pure.? In fact many writers have presented proof with respect two missing Suras that were in the original. Let?s look at some of the sources for this statement and facts on other missing items.

Muslims attack the Bible on the grounds that it sometimes has conflicting wording from different manuscripts. Yet this is exactly the case with the text of the Quran. There are many conflicting readings on the text of the Quran as Arthur Jeffery has demonstrated in his book, Material for the History of the Text of the Quran (New York, Russell F. Moore, 1952)..

At one point Jeffery gives 90 pages of variant readings on the text. For example, in Sura 2 there are over 140 conflicting and variant readings on the text of the Quran. )..

All Western and Muslim scholars admit the presence of variant readings in the text of the Quran .

Guillaume points out that the Quran at first "had a large number of variants, not always trifling in significance" .

"It is interesting to note that in scholarly Muslim journals, there is beginning to be a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are variant and conflicting readings on the text of the Quran" .

According to Professor Guillaume in his book, Islam, (pp. 191ff.), some of the original verses of the Quran were lost.

For example, one Sura originally had 200 verses in the days of Ayesha. But by the time Uthman standardized the text of the Quran, it had only 73 verses! A total of 127 verses had been lost, and they have never been recovered..

The Shiite Muslims claim that Uthman left out 25 percent of the original verses in the Quran for political reasons .

That there are verses which got left out of Uthman's version of the Quran is universally recognized .

.

Burton states concerning the Muslim claim that the Quran is perfect

"The Muslin accounts of the history of the Quran texts are a mass of confusion, contradiction and inconsistencies" .

In fact Caliph Ultman had verses added to the Qur?an, let?s look at that

Not only have parts of the Quran been lost, but entire verses and chapters have been added to it.

For example, Ubai had several Suras in his manuscript of the Quran which Uthman omitted from his standardized text.

Thus there were Qurans in circulation before Uthman's text which had additional revelations from Muhammad that Uthman did not find or approve of, and thus he failed to place them in his text.

Also, there are No Originals
As to the claim that the original manuscript of the Quran is still in existence, we have already pointed out there was no single "manuscript" of the Quran.

Caesar Farah in his book on Islam, states

"When Muhammad died there existed no singular codex of the sacred text" .

"One thing only is certain and is openly recognized by tradition, namely, that there was not in existence any collection of revelations in the final form, because, as long as he was alive, new revelations were being added to the earlier ones" .

ISLAM?S FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE BIBLE ARE HYPOCRITICAL AND CONCLUSION

First, let?s delve a little deeper in into the true state of the Qur?an after Caliph Uthman.

Restrain this people before they differ in the book, as do the Jews and the Christians."

Ibn Masud and Ubai were sent by the 2nd Caliph Umar as the Islamic governors and teachers of their respective provinces. They were not rebels who went out to spread error! They were teaching their particular 'version' (Islam's own word for differing Arabic texts) of the Qur'an which they both claimed adamantly came from Muhammad.

Yet, Ahmed Von Denffer who already admitted graphic differences in the Companion readings has the gall to misstate the facts as
"Later on, with Muslims settling in many parts of the world, the Qur'an was recited in a variety of ways, some of which were not in accordance with the accepted text, and the transmitted readings of the Prophet and the Companions. This necessitated a thorough screening and distinction between what is sahih (sound) and what is shadh (exceptional)." .

Although many claim that the codices of the Companions were different simply because they were 'personal notebooks', the differences Tabari mentions were those actually recited by their pupils, the citizens of Iraq and Syria, as 'Qur'an' from these men. These were not 'notebooks', and Sahih Muslim (Vol. 2, p. 393f., #1797-1801) records examples of the differences taught to the followers..

For this reason Ibn Mas'ud is known to have refused to hand over his text to `Uthman's agents declaring that he received his from Muhammad and he was not willing to accept what young Zaid ibn Thabit recited. And, Sahih Muslim #6022 (Vol. 4, p. 1312; English version) records his admission that he told his followers to likewise withhold their copies! .

The equally problematic choice faced by those who falsely claim that 6 out of 7 Forms of the Qur?an were simply withdrawn that there are admitted variations in writing. This is clearly shown since no Sunni would accept this; thus they are forced by their beliefs to falsely claim that the variants were simply ?notebooks? which is an outright lie.

However, many in Islam have the nerve to make claims with respect the ?purity? of the Bible. But their own ?house? is far out of order as shown by "Abu Amr who states that he received the following revelation from Katada as-Sadusi
"When the first copy of the Qur'an was written out and presented to Othman Ibn Affan, he said 'There are faults of language in it, and let the Arabs of the desert rectify them with their tongues." .

Even in this first copy corruption had occurred which was readily visible to Caliph Uthman, but he cared not as he wanted a uniform text oven an accurate test.

Inspite of the terrible corruption of the text of the Qur?an, Members of Islam
Repeat that the Bible has been corrupted which is patently absurd given the true state of affairs with regard the Qur?an. This is especially so given that <<<? In the English language, the alphabet has both consonants and vowels, but at that time the Arabic alphabet had only consonants. The consonants were represented by only seventeen symbols so that the symbol for one consonant could stand for one of two or more letters. And there was no way of indicating vowels.?>>>.

And,

?The 'hamza', the 'alif' indicating 'long-a', the other vowels, and particularly the diacritical points which were added later and which fixed the underlying consonantal text, had by this time all been added to the Koran's text. Luxenberg considers that these changes to the original text by themselves resulted in the text of the Koran in many places being misread and distorted. In his thorough analysis {4} he makes the point that linguists (scholars) who inserted the diacritical and vowel points assumed that the particular 'reading' they were fixing was reliable and concludes that their assumption was now in doubt..

Now one should ask why Islam must hide the truth with respect the Qur?an. Of course the reason is obvious ? they could not openly attack the inspired word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, creator of all there is, the Bible, and it many manuscripts all delineating one text, and every one of them able to be compared with each other as a safeguard against error if they admitted the truth about the Qur?an, so they must live a lie.

Thus it is essential for Islam?s survival to avoid the truth about the early details with regard to the Qur?an. To admit the facts would ?blow? their cover-up with respect the none purity and the many variant versions of the Qur?an which once existed and all the other problems with regard the Qur?an.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Sunshine

This is your friend Iris89.

Part Two of Who Really Is 'Allah' The Supreme God Of The Makkans

ACCEPTANCE BY MUHAMMAD OF THE MAKKAH'S SUPREME GOD DID NOT MEAN PEACE WITH THE MAKKAH.

Let's consider the Attack by the Makkans against Muhammad by an impeccable Muslim source.
"The Prophet, after arriving in Madinah, first formed an alliance with the Jews. Next, he approached all the nearby tribes and tried to persuade them to make an alliance or at least enter into a no-war pact. Many did. Thus the small group evicted from Makkah assumed strategic importance.

The Makkans who had earlier planned to kill the Prophet, were now determined to annihilate this nascent community of Islam. Having failed in all other ways they decided on a military solution...
As soon as the Hudaybiyah Treaty was signed, the Prophet sent letters to various neighbouring Arab and non-Arab rulers, including Chosroes of Iran and Heraclitus of the Byzantine Empire. He invited them to Islam, and assured them that he did not covet their kingdoms or riches. They could retain both, but only if they surrendered themselves to serve and worship the One God.

The Quraysh, however, soon broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. It was, thus, time to deal with their continuing hostility. The Prophet marched to Makkah, and captured the town. The fall of Makkah witnessed unparalleled acts of mercy forgiveness and generosity. Not a single drop of blood was shed. Everybody who remained indoors was granted security of life and property. The Prophet forgave all who had been his bitterest foes all his life, who had persecuted him and planned to kill him, who had driven him out of Makkah, and who had marched thrice to Madinah to defeat the Muslims.

Also, <<"It had become impossible for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to preach and for the ummah to live securely in Makkah.">>

And, <<"Tawheed al-'Ebaadah (Maintaining The Unity of Worship)
In spite of the wide implications of the first two categories of Tawheed, firm belief in them alone is not sufficient to fulfill the Islamic requirements of Tawheed. Tawheed ar-Ruboobeeyah and Tawheed al-Asmaa was-Sifaat must be accompanied by their complement, Tawheed al-'Ebaadah, in order for Tawheed to be considered complete according to Islaam. This point is substantiated by the fact that Allaah Himself has related in clear terms that the Mushrikoon (idolators) of the Prophet's time confirmed many aspects of the first two forms of Tawheed. In the Qur'aan Allaah tells the Prophet (saws) to say to the pagans
"Say 'Who is it that gives you all sustenance from the sky and earth, governs sight and hearing, brings forth life from dead (matter) and death from the living, and plans the affairs of man?' They will all say 'Allaah'."35
"If you asked them who created them, they would surely say, 'Allaah' "36
"If you asked them who brings down water from the sky and with it brings the earth to life after its death? They will most certainly say, 'Allaah'."37

The pagan Makkans all knew that Allaah was their creator, sustainer, their Lord and Master yet that knowledge did not make them Muslims according to God. In fact,">>

WHAT GOD REALLY IS THE MOON GOD ALLAH?

Let's look at the facts from renown historical writings

"Namely that "Allah" is synonymous with the god Hubal of the pagan Makkans! ... Generally, objects of worship belonged to three genres metal and wooden" .

And, "At the time of Muhammad, the Ka'abah was OFFICIALLY DEDICATED to the god Hubal, a deity who had been imported into Arabia from the Nabateans in what is now Jordan. But the pre-eminence of the shrine as well as the common belief in Mecca seems to suggest that it may have been dedicated originally to al-Llah, the High God of the Arabs ..." , pp. 61-62;]

And, "Pre-Islamic Arabia also had its stone deities. They were stone statues of shapeless volcanic or meteoric stones found in the deserts and believed to have been sent by astral deities. The most prominent deities were Hubal, the male god of the Ka'ba, and the three sister goddesses al-Lat, al-Manat, and al-Uzza; Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh, thought these three goddesses to be the daughters of Allah. Hubal was the chief god of the Ka'ba among 360 other deities. He was a man-like statue whose body was made of red precious stone and whose arms were of solid gold. (George W. Braswell, Jr., Islam Its Prophets, Peoples, Politics and Power" , p. 44]

And, "The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to other titles that could be given to him.

Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called "the daughters of Allah." These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.

The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as 'high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities.

Along with Allah, however, they worshipped a host of lesser gods and "daughters of Al-lah'" ".

These female puppet celestial goddess, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, "These were also called 'the Daughters of Allah' and were supposed to intercede before God. When the Apostle of God was sent, God revealed unto him the following"

And, "In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars such as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah! .

And, "The word "Allah" comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is the definite article "the" and ilah is an Arabic word for "god." It is not a foreign word. It is not even the Syriac word for God. It is pure Arabic." .

Allah was also known as Hubel, ""Among the gods worshiped by the Quraysh, the greatest was Hubal
...
Some additional details on this cleromantic deity, the most powerful of the pagan idols of Mecca, is supplied by the Meccan historian Azraqi ...
Amr ibn Luhayy brought with him (to Mecca) an idol called Hubal from the land of Hit in Mesopotamia. Hubal was one of the Quraysh's greatest idols so he set it up at the well inside the Kab'a and ordered the people to worship it. Thus a man coming back from a journey would visit it and circumambulate the House before going to his family, and would shave his hair before it ... ", pp. 24-25]

And, ""Khuza 'ah thus shared the guilt of Jurhum. They were also to blame in other respects a chieftain of theirs, on his way back from a journey to SYRIA, had asked the MOABITES to give him ONE OF THEIR IDOLS. They gave him HUBAL, which he brought back to the Sanctuary, setting it up within the Ka'bah itself; and it became THE CHIEF IDOL OF MECCA." .

And this Hubel or Allah the Moon god is indicated to be known by others as the Biblically condemned god, 'Baal.' Commenting on 'Abd al-Muttalib's rediscovery of the well of Zamzam and its treasures, Lings writes
"... So 'Abd al-Muttalib continued to dig without any actual move being made to stop him; and some of the people were already leaving the sanctuary when suddenly he struck the well's stone covering and uttered a cry of thanksgiving to God. The crowd reassembled and increased; and when he began to dig out the treasure which Jurhum had buried there, everyone claimed the right to share in it. 'Abd al-Muttalib agreed that lots should be cast for each object, as to whether it should be kept in the sanctuary or go to him personally or be divided amongst the tribe. This had become the recognised way of deciding an issue of doubt, and it was done by means of divining arrows inside the Ka'bah, in front of THE MOABITE IDOL HUBAL ..." (Lings, p. 11; bold and capital emphasis ours)
'Amr then asked them to give him an idol he could take to Arab lands where it could be worshipped, and they gave him one named Hubal. This he brought to Mecca and set on a pedestal and ordered the people to worship and venerate it. (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed" , p. 42]

Interestingly, Ibn Kathir shows that the god of Muhammad's family was Hubal, and that his grandfather even prayed to Allah by facing Hubal's idol! Ibn Ishaq stated, "It is claimed that when 'Abd al-Mutallib received such opposition from Quraysh over the digging of zamzam, he vowed that if ten sons were born to him who grew up and protected him, he would sacrifice one of them for God at the ka'ba."

"Eventually he had ten sons grown up whom he knew would give him protection. Their names were al-Harith, al-Zubayr, Hajl, Dirar, al-Muqawwim, Abu Lahab, al-'Abbas, Hamza, Abu Talib, and 'Abd Allah. He assembled them and told them of his vow and asked them to honour his pledge to God, Almighty and All-glorious is He. They obeyed, and asked him what he wanted them to do. He asked each of them to take an arrow, write his name on it and return to him.
"They did so and went with them inside the ka'ba to the site of their god Hubal, where there was the well in which offerings to the ka'ba would be placed. There, near Hubal, were seven arrows which they would use for divining a judgement over some matter of consequence, a question of blood-money, kinship, or the like. They would come to Hubal to seek a resolution, accepting whatever they were ordered to do or to refrain from." .

"Allah (allah, al-ilah, the god) was the principal, though not the only, deity of Makkah. The name is an ancient one. It occurs in two South Arabic inscriptions, one a Minean found at al-'Ula and the other Sabean, but abounds in the form HLH in the Lihyanite inscriptions of the fifth century B.C. Lihyan, which evidently got the god from Syria, was the first center of the worship of this deity in Arabia. The name occurs as Hallah in the Safa inscriptions five centuries before Islam and also in a pre-Islamic Christian Arabic inscription found in umm-al-Jimal, Syria, and ascribed to the sixth century. The name of Muhammad's father was 'Abd-Allah ('Abdullah, the slave or worshiper of Allah). The esteem in which Allah was held by the pre-Islamic Makkans as the creator and supreme provider and the one to be invoked in time of special peril may be inferred from such koranic passages as 3124, 31; 6137, 109; 1023. Evidently he was the tribal deity of the Quraysh." , pp. 100-101].

And, "Ibn Kathir noted that Muhammad's family worshiped Hubal, with the Oxford Dictionary of Islam stating that Hubal was the Quraysh's patron deity. If Hitti is correct regarding Allah being the Quraysh's' tribal deity then this provides additional proof that Allah was a name for Hubal. Note the following syllogism

1. Hubal was the chief deity of the Quraysh.
2. Allah was the chief deity of the Quraysh.
3. Therefore, Hubal was Allah in pre-Islamic times.

There is another indirect piece of evidence which links Allah to Baal. Writer, Franz Rosenthal, while commenting on the mass confusion which surrounded the Muslims regarding the precise meaning of as-samad (Cf. 1122), posits a possible origin for the word. He says
... There is enough room for suspicion to permit us having a look at some outside evidence.

There, we encounter a noteworthy phenomenon the not infrequent religious connotation of the root smd.

In Ugaritic, smd appears as a stick or club that is wielded by Ba'l. In the Kilammu inscription, line 15, we find b'l smd, apparently, b'l as the owner of his divine club. In the Bible, the adherence of the Israelites to Baal of Peor is expressed by the nip'al of the root smd. The verb is translated by the Septuagint heteleuse (Numeri 253, 5; Ps. 1062. The use of the verb doubtlessly reflects North Canaanite religious terminology.

From Arabic sources, we learn that an idol of 'Ad was allegedly called samud, which brings us rather close to the environment of Muhammad
...
In view of this material, the suggestion may be made that as-samad in the Qur'an is a survival of an ancient Northwest Semitic religious term, which may no longer have been understood by Muhammad himself, nor by the old poets (if the sawahid should be genuine). This suggestion would well account for the presence of the article with the word in the Qur'an, and it would especially well account for the hesitation of the commentators vis-a-vis so prominent a passage. Such hesitation is what we would expect if we are dealing with a pagan survival from the early period of the revelation."

Let's face it the proper name 'Allah' was much in use in pre-Islamic times and applied to pagan deities, now it is shown that 'Allah' is indicated to be the same as the pagan deity condemned by the Bible, 'Baal.'
"Allah, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target of worhip in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "Il" (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El"; the South Arabians worshiped him as "Ilah," and the Bedouins as "al-Ilah" (the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits of no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah from a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews."

CONCLUSION

Clearly Islam owes term 'Allah' to the pagan/heathen Arabs. "We have evidence that it entered into numerous personal names in Northern Arabia and among the Nabatians. It occurs among the Arabs of later times, in theophorus names and on its own. Wellhausen also cites pre-Islamic literature where Allah is mentioned as a great deity. We also have the testimony of the Koran itself where He is recognized as a giver of rain, a creator, and so on; the Meccans only crime was to worship other gods beside Him. Eventually, Allah was only applied to the Supreme Deity. "In any case it is an extremely important fact that Muhammad did not find it necessary to introduce an altogether novel deity, but contented himself with ridding the heathen Allah of his companions subjecting him to a kind of dogmatic purification ... Had he not been accustomed from his youth to the idea of Allah as the Supreme God, in particular of Mecca, it may well be doubted whether he would ever have come forward as the preacher of Monotheism."

Ibn Warraq continues on, "Interesting is the name HUBAL (in Arabic and Hebrew script the vowels were not noted). This shows a very suspicious connection to the Hebrew HABAAL (= the Baal). As we all know this was an idol mentioned in the Bible (Num. 253, Hosea 910, Deut. 43, Josh. 2217 and Ps. 10628-29). Where was Baal worshipped? In Moab! It was the "god of fertility". Amr ibn Luhaiy brought Hubal from Moab to Arabia.

The name 'Allah' (from 'al-Ilah' - the god or 'al-Liah' = the one worshipped) was well used in pre-Islamic times. It was rather a title than a name and, was used for a diversity of deities. As we shall see later, an idol called Hubal was addressed as Allah. Muhammad's grandfather reportedly prayed to Hubal and addressed him as Allah. The deities al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were called "the daughters of Allah" (Surah 5319). "Allah was viewed, already before Muhammad, as the Lord of the Ka'ba, while, if not surely, but very probably, this sanctuary was devoted to Hubal, whose image was placed inside" (RESTE ARABISCHEN HEIDENTHUMS, p. 221 by J. Wellhausen). "While the rituals performed are still addressed to the respective deities, Allah is seen as the creator, the father and with that the superior Lord. But he is viewed to be too general, neutral and impersonal a Lord" .

Therefore, "But the vague notion of Supreme (NOT SOLE) divinity which Allah seems to have connoted in Meccan religion was to BECOME both universal and transcendental; it was to be turned by the Kur'anic preaching, into the affirmation of the living God, the Exalted One." .

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Hi Everyone

Starjade is right about ?Allah?. Let?s look at the facts with complete backup/sources.

Who Really Is 'Allah' The Supreme God Of The Makkans

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The Old Testament specifically denies the Muslim claim that the pre-Islamic Ishmaelites knew and worshiped the true God (YHWH) of Abraham. The data conclusively shows that as the timeline of the centuries unfolded the Ishmaelites forsook the God of their ancestors Abraham and Jacob, Yahweh or Jehovah (YHWH), for the worship of some false god. The false god whom they worshiped as the true God was quite possibly Baal. The data also shows that Hubal was the high god worshiped at Mecca, which is supportted by the view that he was the Allah of pre-Islamic times. He Allah or Hubal was the high god of the Makkans ; although, they had many other gods and goddesses such as the daughter celestial goddesses of Allah who was the old middle eastern Moon god.

A great wall supposedly built by Dhul-Qarnayn literally meaning "He of the Two Horns", is a figure mentioned in the Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam, where he is described as a great and righteous ruler who built a long wall that keeps Gog and Magog from attacking the people of the West. Moreover, he is regarded by some Muslims as a prophet. The epithet was also familiar among the pre-Islamic Arabs , who applied it to at least three different kings. Now this may seem strange to mention in the introduction, but is important as it clearly shows that Muhammad adopted pagan myths into the Quran as well as using Bible accounts as its framework. Accounts to prove he adopted this pagan myth are sound at the Cave chapter of the Quran at Sura 1883-98 which will be dealt with shortly.

SURA 1883-98 AND THE DHUL-QARNAYN

And they ask you about Zulqarnain. Say I will recite to you an account of him.
Surely We established him in the land and granted him means of access to every thing.
So he followed a course.
Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.
He said As to him who is injust, we will chastise him, then shall he be returned to his Lord, and He will chastise him with an exemplary chastisement And as for him who believes and does good, he shall have goodly reward, and We will speak to him an easy word of Our command.
Then he followed (another) course.
Until when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom We had given no shelter from It;
Even so! and We had a full knowledge of what he had.
Then he followed (another) course.
Until when he reached (a place) between the two mountains, he found on that side of them a people who could hardly understand a word.
They said O Zulqarnain! surely Gog and Magog make mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute on condition that you should raise a barrier between us and them
He said That in which my Lord has established me is better, therefore you only help me with workers, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them;
Bring me blocks of iron; until when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said Blow, until when he had made it (as) fire, he said Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it.
So they were not able to scale it nor could they make a hole in it.
He said This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, and the promise of my Lord is ever true.

Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an.
Main article Alexander in the Qur'an (Theory)
The story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander the Great's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The Alexander Romance was enormously popular in the Hellenistic world, including Jewish communities, among which Alexander had practically gained the status of a folk hero. Some adaptations containing all the elements of the Qur'anic account can be found in early Hellenistic documents, such as the Armenian recension of the Alexander Romance. Actually the main elements of the story (an iron gate constructed by Alexander blocking the passage of Scythian tribes; identification of said Scythians with Gog and Magog) can already be found in Josephus and in Saint Jerome, although in fragmented occurrences (see Alexander in the Qur'an for details).

For these reason the widely accepted view is that the (indirect) model for Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great. The majority of medieval Muslim scholars were happy to identify Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander. However, some Muslim scholars have asserted that the medieval scholars were mistaken and that Dhul-Qarnayn cannot be Alexander.

Cyrus the Great as Dhul Qarnain
Main article Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an (theory)
Some contemporary Muslim scholars, such as Maududi and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, have suggested that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great. This theory has been endorsed by Iranian scholars Allameh Tabatabaei .

The archaic Dhul-Qarnayn
Some early Islamic commentators stipulated that Dhul-Qarnayn must have been a contemporary of Abraham. Others postulated an Alexander who lived 2000 years before Alexander the Great.

The Arab Dhul-Qarnayn
Two early Arabian kings were known as Dhul-Qarnayn the northern Arabian king Al-Mundhir al-Akbar ibn Ma' as-Sama' (so called for his two curled locks), and the early South Arabian king Tubba' al-Aqran. South Arabian interpreters of the Qur'an argue that the Qur'anic Dhul-Qarnayn was their king Tubba'. Other supporters of the Yemeni Dhul-Qarnayn theory included (the Persian) Biruni in his Athar al-baqiyah, Asma'i in his Tarikh al-Arab ("History of Arab&quot, and Sirah of Ibn Hisham, among others.
Others have suggested that Dhul-Qarnayn could be the Egyptian pharoah Narmer , who unified northern and southern Egypt. Among supporters of the Arab Dhul-Qarnayn theory were Mughrizi in his book al-Khutat, and Allama Sayyed Habeddin al-Shahrestani.

The angelic Dhul-Qarnayn
There are scattered references in which Ali ibn Abi Talib gives the epithet Dhul-Qarnayn. Since Dhul-Qarnayn was a righteous ruler, this may simply be a way of praising by Ali. Mughrizi also quotes Mukhtar ibn Abi Ubayd as saying that Ali always referred to Dhul-Qarnayn as "an angel without wings". The 8th century scholar Al-Jahiz, in his (???????), also writes of Dhul-Qarnayn being born to a human mother and angelic father.

Of course this is the same kind of story/legend as that where the Quran took the old middle eastern Moon god, 'Allah,' and tried to blend him, a puppet celestial god of Satan, into the true God (YHWH) of Abraham; to wit, from epithets that were familiar among the pre-Islamic Arabs. Let's look at some facts from history and archaeology on this fact.

It should not come as a surprise that the word "Allah" was not something invented by Muhammad or revealed for the first time in the Quran.

The well-known Middle East scholar H.A.R. Gibb has pointed out that the reason that Muhammad never had to explain who Allah was in the Quran is that his listeners had already heard about Allah long before Muhammad was ever born .

One Muslim I have corresponded with said the following
<<"You did not see what point I have written in my last post, allow me to explain in a better way. Dhul-Qarnayn may have a meaning but in the Quran it is given as he is a sort of a king or a leader. If you understood what I have said, I have said that the"wall" of Dhul-Qarnayn. We are not talking about names and where it's origin is from, we are talking about the Quran being the truth. If you do not see this then go get more information as we all say; we never stop learning.

ALLAH AS THE SUPREME GOD OF THE ANCINET PAGAN MAKKANS (RESIDENTS OF MECCA)

This section opens with a statement by a learned Muslim testifying to the fact that Allah was the supreme god of the ancient pagan Makkans (Residents of Mecca).

<<"The thing you said that about the Makkans knowing about Allah before Muhammed(S.A.W) is true. From prophet Ibrahim and Ismail to (S.A.W), Allah was was brought as the true God. The Makkans knew that Allah was a god, but they said that He was the supreme god from all the others, they would say that He was beyond the universe so they needed other small gods to transmit their prayers to Him. The Makkans were not angry at Allah but if you have searched the facts and so, they despised Muhammed(S.A.W), because they said that he was spreading the menace and dishonoring their gods. They did not say anything about Allah(S.T), for He was their supreme god and dishonoring it would bring badness over them. So we see that the other prophets before Muhammed(S.A.W) brought the information that Allah was the only true God but then, like every prophet, they listened then betrayed the prophets for their ignorance and changed it like they did to the bible, but the true religion will never fall(Islam). The prophet Muhammed(S.A.W) which had enemies but with the truth in his hands he succeeded on giving all the world the truth to save them from the hell fire, but still a lot of people do not except this as their arrogance is blinding them. You see now that the truth was given to the world, each one of the nations, but they disobeyed it and got punished for it as they didn't pass the test. Prophet Muhammed(S.A.W) brought them(Makkans) a book, he told them to worship only one god, he didn't tell them of how this god looked like and so on. This was a test for them to beleive in the truth as the shaitan will make it look as it is not the truth and everyone knew it that beleiving in something that is in the open, simple, and very understandable and not seeing of how their god looks like would be a challange but would also be rewarded greatly in the here after. Islam is the truth as they(Makkans/disbeleivers) knew that life is a test than you(an educated person) should know better.">>

So now we have established the fact that Allah was the supreme god of the ancient Makkans. Let's look at some of the facts related to the ancient pagan Makkans and their supreme pagan god Allah.

First the basic premise of this writer is false; to wit,
<<"We are not talking about names and where it's origin is from, we are talking about the Quran being the truth. If you do not see this then go get more information as we all say; we never stop learning.">>

Second his admittance that with respect the old middle eastern Moon god, 'Allah,' actually being the supreme god of the none worshippers of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, the Makkans
<<"The thing you said that about the Makkans knowing about Allah before Muhammed(S.A.W) is true. From prophet Ibrahim and Ismail to (S.A.W), Allah was was brought as the true God. The Makkans knew that Allah was a god, but they said that He was the supreme god from all the others, they would say that He was beyond the universe so they needed other small gods to transmit their prayers to Him.">>

Dr. Arthur Jeffery, one of the foremost Western Islamic scholars in modern times and professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at Columbia University, notes

<<"The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa">> .

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, states, <<"The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god&quot, and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity">> .

The Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, states, <<"The name Allah goes back before Muhammad">> .

And, <<"The word "Allah" comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is the definite article "the" and ilah is an Arabic word for "god." It is not a foreign word. It is not even the Syriac word for God. It is pure Arabic.">> .

And, Neither is Allah a Hebrew or Greek word for God as found in the Bible. Allah is a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity.

Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics I326, T & T Clark, states
<<"Allah" is a proper name, applicable only to their peculiar God.">>'
.
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion

And, <<"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian Bel">> .

The Encyclopedia Britannica adds, <<"Allah is found . . . in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam">> .

The Encyclopedia of Islam is in agreement and say, <<"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah">> .

This same encyclopedia went on to say, <<"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic . . . Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities">> .

And pre-Islamic poetry attest to this fact, <<"Ilah . . . appears in pre-Islamic poetry . . . By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to Allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry">> .

And Dr. Kenneth Cragg, former editor of the very prestigious scholarly journal Muslim World and an outstanding modern Western Islamic scholar, whose works are generally published by Oxford University, comments

<<"The name Allah is also evident in archeological and literary remains of pre-Islamic Arabia">> .

And the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on 02/28/2006), states, <<" Theories on the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn
According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, a widely used 14th-century commentary on the Qur'an
"The Quraysh sent An-Nadr bin Al-Harith and Uqbah bin Abi Muit to the Jewish rabbis in Al-Madinah, and told them Ask them (the rabbis) about Muhammad, and describe him to them, and tell them what he is saying. They are the people of the first Book, and they have more knowledge of the Prophets than we do.' So they set out and when they reached Al-Madinah, they asked the Jewish rabbis about the Messenger of Allah. They described him to them and told them some of what he had said. They said, You are the people of the Tawrah and we have come to you so that you can tell us about this companion of ours.' They (the rabbis) said, `Ask him about three things which we will tell you to ask, and if he answers them then he is a Prophet who has been sent (by Allah); if he does not, then he is saying things that are not true, in which case how you will deal with him will be up to you. Ask him about some young men in ancient times, what was their story For theirs is a strange and wondrous tale. Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story And ask him about the Ruh (soul or spirit) -- what is it If he tells you about these things, then he is a Prophet, so follow him, but if he does not tell you, then he is a man who is making things up, so deal with him as you see fit.
According to Maududi's conservative 20th-century commentary
"This Surah was sent down in answer to the three questions which the mushriks of Makkah, in consultation with the people of the Book, had put to the Holy Prophet in order to test him. These were (1) Who were "the Sleepers of the Cave"? (2) What is the real story of Khidr? and (3) What do you know about Zul-Qarnain? As these three questions and the stories involved concerned the history of the Christians and the Jews, and were unknown in Hijaz, a choice of these was made to test whether the Holy Prophet possessed any source of the knowledge of the hidden and unseen things. Allah, however, not only gave a complete answer to their questions but also employed the three stories to the disadvantage of the opponents of Islam in the conflict that was going on at that time at Makkah between Islam and un-belief.">>

See Part Two of Starjade is Correct on Allah