Answering Christianity Research Center

 This article is a response to a claim made by a Christian commenter on the “Quran and Bible Blog” regarding the approximate date when the Gospel of John, the fourth and last of the “canonical” gospels, was written.  In short, the claim is that the gospel was written before 70 CE (i.e. before the temple was destroyed), and thus much closer to the time of Jesus (peace be upon him).  This claim is not new, but it would seem strange to most students of New Testament history.  In response to this claim, we will first provide the current scholarly views on the date the gospel was written.  In the second part, we will analyze the claim that the gospel can be reliably dated to before 70 CE and show that the reality is quite different.  Finally, after all is said and done, we will also briefly discuss the all-important issue of authorship.

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/john-52-and-the-date-of-the-fourth-gospel-a-response-to-a-christian-apologist/

Christian apologists, especially the less-educated ones, often times accuse the Quran of having copied from the Bible. This, they argue, shows that Islam is not from God but is rather a man-made religion.

But this argument can be very easily refuted. The next time a brainless Christian apologist uses this argument, just give him/her the following history lesson:

1. The Bible refers to the ruler of Egypt in the times of Abraham and Joseph (peace be upon them) as “Pharaoh” (Genesis 12, 37).
2. Both the Bible and the Quran refer to the Egyptian ruler during the time of Moses (peace be upon him) as “Pharaoh”.
3. While the title was used in the time of Moses (peace be upon him), it was NOT used to refer to the Egyptian king in earlier times, such as those of Abraham and Joseph (peace be upon them), which means that the Bible’s use of the term in Genesis is an anachronism.
4. If the charge of “plagiarism” is accurate, then we should expect that the Quran would repeat the error in the Bible when recounting the story of Joseph (Surah 12). And yet, we find that the Arabic word “firaun” is ONLY used to describe the Egyptian king in the time of Moses (peace be upon him) but NEVER in the time of Joseph (peace be upon him).
5. How could the author of the Quran, assuming He was copying the Bible or other Jewish stories in 7th century Arabia, have known NOT to use the title “firaun” when referring to the Egyptian ruler in the time of Joseph (peace be upon him)? The “plagiarism” argument immediately breaks down!
You see how easy it is? So the next time some brainless apologist uses this argument to bash the Quran, show him the folly of his argument and enjoy watching him squirm!

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/the-quran-copied-from-the-bible-a-simple-way-to-refute-the-plagiarism-argument/

Here is a detailed response to Christians, including Sam Shamoun, on the scientific error in the Bible about rabbits chewing the cud:

https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/07/on-rabbits-and-rumination-a-response-to-christian-interpretations-of-leviticus-115-6/

Some excerpts:

"The problem is that the verses claim that both hyraxes and rabbits “chew the cud”.  In other words, they regurgitate partially digested food to chew it again and then swallow it.  This is done in order to gain the most nutrients from the food.  This complex process is called “rumination”.[3]  Animals such as cows, sheep and goats are categorized as “ruminants”.[4]  But animals like hyraxes and rabbits are not ruminants because they do not regurgitate their food in order to chew it again.  Rather, they are categorized as “non-ruminant herbivores”.[5]   Thus, skeptics of the Bible claim that Leviticus 11:5-6 is a scientific error and clear evidence to disprove the Bible’s alleged “inerrancy”."

"Perhaps Shamoun should pick up a science book once in a while, because this is an inaccurate claim.  While rabbits do perform the process called “refection”, also known as “caecotrophy”, in which they swallow soft feces, they do not “chew” it.  Rather, the pellet of feces is swallowed whole.  As stated in the book “Nutrition of the Rabbit”:

“[h]ard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows without chewing them.”[7]"