In this response we will address Osama Abdallah’s alleged rebuttal to my paper

Response to the futile rebuttal of Answering-Christianity.com

In this response we will address Osama Abdallah’s alleged rebuttal to my paper. As we will demonstrate here, Mr. Abdallah is very incapable of dealing with the issues at hand and must resort to red herrings and other irrelevant issues not present in the contextual scope of the argument at hand- “What does the NIV say about the Bible”. Before we continue we must say that this is the first article of Osama that we have addressed in well over a year and a half. The reason being is that our goal is to present “answers to Islam” and not “answers to heretics” which is what mainline Muslim administrators consider Osama Abdallah. My new comments are in blue font.

Osama starts his non-response by saying:

My response to Quennel Gale's rebuttal to my article "Just who were the real authors of the Bible?":

This article is a refutation to Quennel Gale and Sam Shamoun's article which is located at: http://answer-islam.org/whowrotegospel.html. It was mostly written by Quennel Gale. Therefore, I will use "He wrote" when referring to the other side's writings.

He wrote:

Introduction

Here we will investigate Osama's theories about who the real authors of the Bible were. He claims that the NIV mentions about the Bible not being the true word of God. However after reading this and looking at his allegations, you will see just how false his arguments really are.

Just who were the real authors of the Bible?

In this article, we will see actual quotes from the commentary of the NIV Bible; one of the most used Bibles among the Christian population world wide.

Before each Gospel in the New Testament, the NIV Bible has a commentary or an introductory section (which is few pages long) that talks a little bit about the history of that particular Chapter.

Let us examine these historical facts to see whether or not it is mature for Christians to really take every single word in all of the Gospels as the True Word of GOD Almighty. Please don't forget to read the conclusion section regarding what Allah Almighty says about those who try to corrupt the Bible in the Noble Quran.

My response:

These old paragraphs of mine had been revised to these new ones:

It doesn’t surprise us that Osama revises his website since much of his material is actually posted out of haste and not accuracy this practice would be common. We don’t object to the update of one’s site but Osama changes his material more than a mother changes a baby’s diaper.

He wrote:

We will examine Osama's claim about the Bible being corrupt and whether the NIV actually says what he claims. We will look at these commentaries as well as expose his silly idea of Bible corruption. He says that we shouldn't take the Bible as the full word of God. However this is the same thing the NIV commentators also do. After reading this article you will see that all Muslim claims to biblical corruption, including those by Osama are very reliant on misquotes.

Here is an email that I received from a Christian regarding Mark 16:17-18:

From: R. Mercer To: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com Subject: I Totally Agree Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:41:57 -0700

"What credibility does Christianity have when it scriptures are littered with such dangerous and obvious forgeries?"

You summed it up very well on your web page. That is my question entirely. Just what are we to believe? If forgeries have been proven to exist in the Bible, then how many more must there be? What about the chapters and verses we all guide our whole life/styles by? Are they forgeries, too?

This verse in Mark 16:17-18, has always bothered me. I have, and still do believe the rest of that passage (laying on of hands, healing the sick,...), so how can that part of the passage be true when the serpent part is forged?

I know the part on drinking any poison says "IF", but the part on taking up serpents says "SHALL", which has always been a problem for me to believe. Imagine us all being forced to take up serpents in order to serve God.

On the other hand, if this was forged, then that creates an even bigger concern for me. Not knowing what text in our Bible is authentic and what is not.

Thanks for letting me take up so much of your time. Like I said before, this passage always bothered me, probably more so than any other.

Thanks, once again. Good Day.

For one thing when you check out the name on Osama's page of his alleged Christian, you find out that you can't email him. We wonder why? Is Osama telling us that he isn't man enough to put a person's email to verify his claim along with allowing us to show both sides of the argument? It seems like this is the case. This information about Mark 16 is answered thoroughly in down in this paper.

My response:

Quennel Gale is known to be low, unprofessional and intimidating (often offensive) in his arguments. Notice how he immediately said "Is Osama telling us that he isn't man enough to put a person's email to verify...." It was requested by Mr. R. Mercer that I don't post his first name and email information, and that's exactly what I did. If I remember correctly, I asked him if I could replace his first name with "R." and he said ok.

Just for the reader's convenience, Quennel Gale is a low-life loser who sends email bombs and possibly forged emails to non-Christians. I have exposed him in good details with images as proofs that showed how much of a low-life loser he is. Here is a sample image of what he did to my email box:

Now remember Osama is claiming to write a rebuttal to the material presented by “Answering Islam” and “Answers to Islam”. Instead he starts with a red herring claiming that “Quennel Gale is known to be low and unprofessional, etc.” Also what does alleged email bombs have to do with the discussion of “Who wrote the Gospels”? Nothing. Also Jochen Katz has shown that any alleged email bomb can easily be forged especially for Osama Abdallah who is a computer engineer. You can read this information here http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/exposed_lies.htm.

What Osama is trying to do is poison the well because his rebuttal is a very weak attempt to cover up his misreading of the NIV text which he claims to verify his position of bible corruption. Mr. Abdallah is this the best you can do?

He wrote:

The Book information of the NIV Bible that I used is listed at the end of this article.

That is fine, however the NIV commentary is the same throughout all NIV bibles. But we also appeal to both the NIV Study bible and the NIV Living Insights Bible, which came a year later.

NIV The Living Insights Study Bible
Charles R. Swindoll
Copyright 1996 by Zondervan Corporation
ISBN 0-310-91882-0

The NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition
Kenneth Barker.
Copyright 1995: Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 49530, USA
ISBN: 0-310-92589-4.

However Osama Abdallah insist that the NIV claims that the Bible was corrupted. He claims that his quotes prove his point and therefore he believes that the entire bible is false. Well lets show you the official NIV prefix commentary that is found in every NIV BIBLE. (NOTE THIS LETTER IS ALSO online at this link which is a response to claims about the NIV and its translation of God's word). We will present both preface information from the NIV Bible book as well as some excerpts from the site. Lets see what they say:

As far as Zondervan is concerned as the publisher of the NIV, and International Bible Society as the copyright owner of the NIV, nothing could be further from the truth. For 188 years IBS, and for 66 years Zondervan, have faithfully communicated the richness of GOD'S REVELATION. (NIV ONLINE LETTER PREFACE TO NIV BIBLE)

Here we see that the NIV publishers and authors look at the Bible as God's own revelation and not corrupted as Osama says that they claim!!!

My response:

Only a biased or an extremely foolish person would not see that the opinion of the NIV authors about the Bible is irrelevant, while the historical information that they provided that was backed by lots of books' references are the relevant information. I used those quotes and clearly and irrefutably proved that most of the books and gospels of the Bible are very doubtful.

If the opinion of the NIV committee is irrelevant then why is Osama using their bible then? Notice that Osama’s entire bible corruption article goes on the commentary of the NIV. Their commentary is their opinion for it can be wrong or correct. Also Osama doesn’t give us any reason as to why “a person is biased for accepting the opinion of the NIV translators”. It is obvious that Osama is bias because his whole argument about Bible corruption stems from his misreading of the Quran itself. As Sam Shamoun demonstrated here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic1.htm such an interpretation is false. I have not seen once where Osama has addressed these issues one by one.

He wrote:

The NIV is based on the most reliable Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. A translation team of more than 100 evangelical Bible scholars from many different denominations, using four levels of committee review, worked for 13 years before the complete Bible was released in 1978. These scholars came from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.

OPERATING FROM THE CONVICTION THAT THE BIBLE IS THE INSPIRED AND WHOLLY RELIABLE WORD OF GOD, the translators wanted to faithfully reproduce what the original Scripture writers wrote, in language that people could read and understand without difficulty. They were - and are - committed to the AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE. The NIV has become the bestselling translation of the Bible, with more than 100 million copies in print. (NIV ONLINE LETTER)

Not only is Osama a liar but he slanders the NIV committe by claiming that their version of the bible proves that God's word is corrupted!!

My response:

How am I being a liar when I quote things like the following that they themselves wrote based on historical evidence about the books and gospels of the Bible?

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship,...."

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark......"

"Although the author does not name himself....."

etc...

It's not me who is being the liar here Quennel. It's you who lacks a great deal of manners by giving direct insults, and who also lacks the ability to see the clear contradiction between the NIV Bible's committee's comments about the entire Bible being the perfect Word of GOD Almighty, and the historical evidence that they showed that clearly refutes this very statement.

Osama is being a liar when he doesn’t quote the entire sentence

Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE COMES FROM PAPIAS (C. A.D. 140), WHO QUOTES AN EVEN EARLIER SOURCE AS SAYING: (1)Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he recieved the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; (2) this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of OUR LORD, but as the preaching of Peter-- preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; (3) Mark ACCURATELY PRESERVED this material.

Now why does Osama stop in the middle of a sentence if he is so sure that the NIV says that Mark’s Gospel is corrupted? Why do they say that Mark preserved the material in this Gospel? If Osama believes in good manners, how these manners failed to teach him that incomplete sentences are fragments and don’t express a complete idea? Also he claims that the historical evidence refutes the bible. How does this occur when we clearly see that both the early testimony of the church as well as the NIV commentary used show that Mark was the writer of this gospel.

If you want to study Islam, who do you turn to verify if the statements of Muhammad is true? The early testimony of Muhammad’s companions. Osama’s own religion rest upon the testimony of one man and a bunch of his companions. If you ask a Muslim this question, “How do you know that the Quran is the word of God?” They will say that it’s the word of God because “ONE MAN, NAMED MUHAMMAD BELIEVED HE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD”. Hence their entire religion began with an unlearned prophet who couldn’t read and write! The next statement by Osama is a repeat and ad nauseum.

He wrote:

Now lets look at the NIV preface which is present in all their bibles, here are some excerpts which throughly refute Osama Abdallah:

In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to THE AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD IN WRITTEN FORM. THEY BELIEVE THAT IT CONTAINS THE DIVINE ANSWERS to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well being. (NIV Living Insights Bible, Preface xxxiii)

Since Osama believes that the original name of God is Allah, and he appeals to the NIV to prove his points on bible corruption, lets let the NIV answer his bogus claims:

In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD". (IBID, Preface xxxv)

See!! LORD, not Allah. Now lets let NIV conclude with this:

We offer this version of the Bible to him whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many into a better understanding of the Holy Scripture and fuller knowledge OF JESUS CHRIST THE INCARNATE WORD, OF WHOM THE SCRIPTURES SO FAITHFULLY TESTIFY. (NIV Inisights Bible, Preface xxxvi & NIV Study Bible Preface xiii)

That sums it all. Osama's lie about the NIV claiming that the Bible is corrupt is a utterly false and has nothing to stand on other than his usual misquotes. We presented this information to Osama over and over and he has avoided it everytime, not even given a response as to how can the bible be corrupt according to the NIV, when they claim in the preface that it is the wholly inspired word of God. In order to fool his reader, Osama must constantly use the fallacy of exclusion by quoting parts here and there and eliminating other important material.

My response:

Anyone who visits my The original name for GOD Almighty in Aramaic and Hebrew was indeed "Allah", would immediately see that I used original Hebrew and Aramaic sources to prove my claim. I didn't rely heavily on the NIV Bible to prove this as Quennel falsely and irresponsibly claims.

Osama Abdallah is very ignorant when it comes to the name of God in Hebrew. He can’t present you a single verse in this bible saying that the name of God is Allah. His entire page of links is refuted here http://www.answer-islam.org/Allah-vs-God.html. To show you just foolish Osama Abdallah is, he thinks that the word Alaha in Aramaic is the same as the word “Allah” in Arabic when he has an article by Menj which claims that <akbar> isn’t the same as the Arabic word <akbar> because this word in Hebrew would mean mouse.

Now if you base a word on a different word in another language solely on how it looks then why do you reject this same methodology when it can be used against Islam? The word for God in Hebrew is “EL or ELOHIM or ELOAH” while in Aramaic the word is “Alaha”. In Arabic “Alaha” is 100% related to ILAH, not Allah. Even the Arabic bible, as we show in this example, doesn’t mention that the name of God is “Allah”.

Ps 83:18 WA YA3LAMUW ANNAKA ISMUKA WA7DAKA, YAHWAH AL3ALIYYU 3ALA KULLI ALARDI.

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth. -Darby

IF ALLAH WAS GOD'S NAME HOW COME IT ISN'T LIKE THIS:

Ps 83:18 WA YA3LAMUW ANNAKA ISMUKA WA7DAKA, ALLAH AL3ALIYYU 3ALA KULLI ALARDI.

All translations of the Bible show that God's name is either JEHOVAH or THE LORD. If Allah is a valid name for God then how come the Arabic Bible didn't use it for his name? If the Arabic Bible wanted to use Allah as a synonym or replace or substitute it for YHWH it would clearly be found as a name in the Arabic Bible. The Bible God clearly says that his name is YHWH, not Allah. Who cares if Allah is misinterpreted as "GOD" or "god". God's name isn't God anyway which would still prove that Muslims worship a nameless henotheistic deity!

One thing which is embarrassing for Osama is “Why does your own Arabic bible show Yahwah as the name of God and not Allah”? Also Osama uses pseudo sources such as “Mankind’s search for God”, a JW source, and then claims that this sect which began in the early 1900’s IS AN ORIGINAL HEBREW PROOF OF WHAT HE’S SAYING.

He wrote:

Exposing Osama's intentional slander

In this section Osama begins his assault on the New Testament.

OSAMA'S FALLACY: IF THE BOOK WASN'T WRITTEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR ONLY IT'S NOT GOD'S WORD.

My response:

Osama's fallacy? Quennel, what's wrong with this simple theory that if the book/gospel was not written by an original disciple of Jesus, then the book can not be regarded as the perfect and incorruptible Holy Word of GOD Almighty? Even the worst of the foolish can understand this simple theory! I feel sorry for you and your lack of manners Quennel. All you do is give insults and make yourself look like a comical clown.

Somebody needs to educate Osama on the notions of logic. A Theory must be developed according to evidence not argued into a particular subject. Also Osama states:

Quennel, what's wrong with this simple theory that if the book/gospel was not written by an original disciple of Jesus, then the book can not be regarded as the perfect and incorruptible Holy Word of GOD Almighty?

There are several problems wrong with this theory.

What exactly does authorship have to do with divine accuracy?
What rule states that if it isn’t written by an original disciple that it is wrong?
Does being written by an original disciple make it correct?
How do you know the account is wrong when you don’t compare it to one who is allegedly correct?
What original disciple of Muhammad wrote the Quran?

As you can see Osama Abdallah already believes that the Bible is corrupted so he has argued this perception back into this flawed theory of his. HE CAN’T EVEN USE THE QURAN OR THE HADITH TO SHOW YOU WHICH PASSAGES ARE CORRUPTED. Now Osama if you claim that “Christians shouldn’t accept Jesus as God because he never claimed to be so”, how can you accept bible corruption or passages “when the Quran doesn’t tell you what specific passages are corrupted?” Also there isn’t a credible academic scholar who adheres to the theory that “if a book isn’t written by a particular person or his close friends that it is wrong”. In this case all of these would be wrong.

Police reports since it isn’t written by the person committing the crime
Biographies since it isn’t written by the person discussed in the biography.
Newspapers since they write stories on other people, and these people don’t write the stories themselves, etc.

You see how foolish this theory is?

He wrote:

If you notice throughout his paper, Osama has established a logically flawed argument due to the fact that he believes that if the author doesn't give his name or if it isn't written by the author it isn't the word of God. However Osama has nothing to base this conclusion on since he is using his opinion as a final standard to build his argument. Therefore since he has not shown any Biblical reference to prove his point, his whole argument is based on "MY OWN OPINION".

My response:

I don't build my arguments by saying "my own opinion". I also did not establish flawed arguments when I present quotes such as the following about the books and gospels:

Once again Osama commits the fallacy of ad nauseum repeating the same misquotes over and over. However we want to focus on this quote which he brings here:

"In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John....."

Later down the line in his paper Osama Abdallah claims that 50-60 AD is to long for a person to write down the Gospel but yet he appeals to Dionysius, a bishop who lived 300 years after John! Now Osama why are you telling us that your argument here is correct when later on you claim that the later something is the more chance it has for being corrupted? We even documented in our first response the Dionysius lived later than John.

He wrote:

We have asked Osama over and over to show us where it is a explict rule that all the authors of the names of the book should write it. He has yet to produce this proof. He knows the difficulty of his position therefore he must ignore our challenge and then proceed with his usual slander.

My response:

Quennel, if it wasn't for the sake of my readers, I would not have taken the time to respond to your nonsensical arguments and foolish comments. The quotes that I presented above would clearly trigger serious concerns and doubts to any serious Truth seeker! How can any real GOD-fearing, GOD-respecting and GOD-glorifying person take the nonsense that exist in your Bible as 100% perfect Words of GOD Almighty?

Once again Osama avoids the clear issue challenge we present to him- “show us where it is an explicit rule that all the authors of the names of the book should write it”. He obviously can’t find evidence of this fantastical theory instead he tries to tell us that his misquote such as the one above with Mark here:

Somebody should tell Osama that using sentence fragments aren’t proof of bible corruption. If you look at the green highlighted part, he failed to let his readers know that the early church knew the author of Mark’s Gospel to be Mark. But then again this historical proof doesn’t correspond with Osama’s propaganda.

My response:

I have added more proofs that show the corruption of the gospel of Mark. Here is what my latest notes say:

Note: Pay attention to the bolded parts to see even more irrefutable proofs FROM THE NIV BIBLE'S COMMENTARY ITSELF about man's alteration and corruption of this gospel.

The Gospel of Mark:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Osama repeats the same material again, Ad nauseum. Also he says:

FROM THE NIV BIBLE'S COMMENTARY ITSELF about man's alteration and corruption of this gospel.

He explicitly said that the NIV shows this gospel being corrupted. So where is it in his quote? Where does this quote mention the word “Corruption”? Also Osama says we don’t know who the author is then why does the quote say “it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark”. So if the early church knew unanimously that the Gospel was written by Mark, HOW CAN OSAMA CLAIM THE WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR IS? So Osama are you telling us that you knew more than the early church that actually was around during the times of Mark? This commentary mentions nothing about bible corruption and all of this ad naseum material was address in my original article.

Osama continues:

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.

Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the Bible remains.

We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc... It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.

Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".

Quennel, if this is not sufficient enough for you to prove that the whole gospel of Mark is doubtful and not perfect (to say the least), then you obviously have no intentions to learn the Truth.

We already answered this too. Osama Abdallah thinks that if you repeat the same material over and over that it will somehow become correct. At best he would only prove that Mark 16:9-20 is not apart of this Gospel and not the entire Gospel. Also this challenge by the bible is well authenticated and answer by Sam Shamoun here:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Naik/mk16challenge.htm

He wrote:

Since he claims that the NIV proves this lets see what the NIV's Commentary on Mark says about these matters.

According to the NIV, the unanimous testimony to the authorship of this book was based on very important evidence from trusted traditions.

My response:

How can this claim be accurate when they, the NIV committee, themselves wrote the following:

How can "Mark ACCURATELY PRESERVED this material" when there is an obvious forgery inserted in his gospel?!

Notice that Osama took my original quote dealing the authorship of Mark and tried to apply it to Mark 16:9-20, when we already had a section discussing this. We posted this information responding to his material on Mark 16:9-20:

Again, more interpolation by Osama. He claims that Mark's ending proves that the Gospel wasn't written by its original authors. However that isn't what his quote says at all. It says

His Gospel PROBABLY ENDED at 16:8

The NIV calls the writing Mark's Gospel!! It said it probably ended here, not that it is proven that it ended at 16:8. Osama is guilty of trying to make the NIV commentary apply to all the Gospels when it gives only a probability that Mark's Gospel ended. However, historical textual evidence illustrates that Mark’s Gospel is two-fold in ending with both an abridged and unabridged versions. Read:

Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. ONE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THE BOOK WITH THE SHORTER ENDING; OTHERS INCLUDE THE SHORTER ENDING AND THEN CONTINUE WITH VERSES 9-20. IN MOST AUTHORITIES VERSES 9-20 FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER VERSE 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful. (Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Tyndale, Wheaton, Illinois, Paul R. McReynolds, 1999 ISBN 0-8423-8290-9)

History has shown that Mark has both a short as well as an unabrigdged ending. Most authorities have Mark 16:9-20. It is only "SOME" who mark it as doubtful. Most means more than Some. That is whay the NIV said that the ending:

PROBABLY ENDED at 16:8

They were aware that most MSS have this verse and it would be incorrect to claim that this verse was a later insertion! Osama's whole evidence was based on probable evidence. If he wanted to prove that Mark 16:9-20 was clearly a later addition, surely he could've furnished a NIV quote that explicitly says "THIS GOSPEL DEFINITELY ENDED AT VERSE 8 AND THE REST IS A LATER INSERTION". However his quote says nothing about this issue, aince it speaks of it only being probable. Why? Because it is historically known that there are two endings to Mark amongst the extant MSS, a long and short one. Mark is known as the Abridged Gospel, and the shorter ending is an abridgement of this abridged Gospel as we will see just a little later. Furthermore, the doctrines taught in these disputed passages are established in other undisputed passages of the Gospels. But let's see what the NIV says about Mark before dealing with Mark 16:9:

Living Insight: It was on the cross at one awful moment, Jesus Christ bore our sins, thus satisfying the righteousnes demands of the Father completely and instantly clearing up our debt. Our sin is forgiven. Our enslavement is broken. We are set free from sin's penalty and sins power once and for all Mark 15:37 (NIV Insights Bible, Commentary on Mark, pg. 1064)

Hence, even before we reach the 16th chapter the NIV emphatically affirms that Jesus died and bore our sins, demonstrating that the NIV translators believe in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authenticity of the Bible. We have just cited evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is found in most of thee MSS and exposed Osama's evidence as doubtful since it is based only on probability and not on hard core evidence. So we now turn to a range of scripture references that Scholars have shown to be related to Mark 16:9-20. These references from undisputed passages establish the teaching of Mark's longer ending:

3.Luke 23:56; John 19:39f
4.Matt 27:60; Mark 15:46; 16:4
5.John 20:11, 12
6.Mark 9:15
7.Mark 9:15
8.Mark 1:24
9.Matt 28:6; Luke 24:6
10.Matt 26:32; Mark 14:28
11.Matt 27:56; John 20:14
12.John 20:18
13.Matt 28:17; Mark 16:13, 14; Luke 24:11, 41; John 20:25
14.Mark 16:14; John 21:1, 14
15.Luke 24:13-35
16.Matt 28:17; Mark 16:11, 14; Luke 24:11, 41; John 20:25
17.Mark 16:12; John 21:1, 14
18.Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 26; 1 Cor 15:5
19.Matt 28:17; Mark 16:11, 13; Luke 24:11, 41; John 20:25
20.Matt 28:19; Acts 1:8
21.John 3:18, 36; Acts 16:31
22.Mark 9:38; Luke 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:18; 19:12
23.Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:2
24.Luke 10:19; Acts 28:3-5
25.Mark 5:23
26.Acts 1:3
27.Luke 9:51; 24:51; John 6:62; 20:17; Acts 1:2, 9-11; 1 Tim 3:16
28.Ps 110:1; Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55f; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22
( This link on scripture references of Mark 16:9-20 )

There are tons of references that demonstrate the fact of Mark's Gospel being based on the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ as shown in the other undisputed passages of the canonical Gospels. Notice that Osama didn't bother to even look at any scripture cross references.

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Really Osama? Lets see what the NIV says concerning whether Mark is the Word of God:

Since Mark's Gospel is traditionally associated with Rome...Mark may be writing to prepare his readers for this suffering by placing before them THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. There are many references, both explicit and veiled, to suffering and discipleship throughout his Gospel. (NIV Study Bible, Commentary on Mark, pg. 1489)

According to the NIV Study bible, Mark gave the people in Rome "THE LIFE OF JESUS", whom the NIV calls "OUR LORD"!! If Mark was corrupted why would they say this? They would say that it wasn't the life of Jesus, nor woudl they call Jesus THEIR LORD if they didn't believe in the authenticity and inspiration of Bible!! Here is more information:

Mark sat down and decided he would write what he remembered of the life of Jesus, AND UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, he recorded an action-packed survey of the things that seemed important to him. (NIV, Insights Bible, Commentary on Mark, pg. 1042)

The NIV says exactly the opposite of what Osama is trying to convey to his reader!!! See it for yourself; Mark, according the NIV was not only inspired, but he was under the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST! So Much for Osama proving that the Gospel of Mark isn't the word of God according to the NIV!

As you can see clearly we responded in detail to Osama’s accusations about Mark 16:9-20. If he actually learns to read my paper before responding he would see this. This is typical of Muslim propagandists to try and rebut material they don’t read at all. Osama didn’t even take the time to post this information on his “alleged rebuttal” page. Why? But guess what; later on in his “alleged rebuttal” he is going to cite me for not addressing two paragraphs HE LATER ADDED AS UPDATES WITHOUT INFORMING US!

He wrote:

Osama leaves this quotation out of his paper to give his reader the impression that the NIV agrees that Mark was corrupted. The NIV says that Mark preserved the material accurately, not corruptedly and hence the reason why Mark wouldn't write his name down as the author, but yet this gospel is attributed to him, is because of the fact that it comes from the preaching of Peter.

My response:

Osama left nothing out to decieve the reader. All Osama did was produce a simple proof that this gospel is a total joke. You can go around my arguments all you want by writing long and boring articles, but the fact still remains: Serious forgeries and man's alterations were inserted into this gospel, and neither you or the NIV committee can deny that. In other words Quennel, your Bible contains garbage. Thanks to the NIV Bible committee for helping me prove this point.

If Osama didn’t leave anything out then why does this quote say from its own words:

1. it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark.

2. Mark ACCURATELY PRESERVED this material. The conclusion drawn from this tradition is that the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by John Mark (see note on Ac. 10:37)

So how come you left out these proofs? Why do the NIV call this gospel “Mark’s Gospel” if they didn’t believe it was Mark’s Gospel? Also how come this quote didn’t mention any words such as “forgery, alterations, etc”? To think that if a person was to argue bible corruption that these words would actually be in a source they quote. Also as for long boring articles? Long and boring according to whom? You Osama? Give us a break! Anything which goes against your preconceived notions is usually term, to long, to boring, or just plain lies.

What type of apologist has to rely on these cheap statements in discussions that may tend to be long? Also when asked why he has long articles on his site, Osama claims that he is present large amounts of proof but when it’s done by us IT IS LONG AND BORING! Do you see the childish mentality here. Yes.

He wrote:

Anybody who is able to view the entire quote will easily see that Mark was a scribe who documented the preaching of Peter muc like Muhammad's follwers did with the Quran. Documentation 150-300 years? NIV debunks this:

Mark is believed to be the earliest of the four Gospels--the one from which other Gospel writers recieved some of their information. (NIV Living Insights Bible, Commentary on Mark, pg. 1042)

Osama has just ignored this part dealing with Mark. The NIV Living Insights Bible dates Mark's Gospel to 50 a.d.!!! Far from being 150-300 years after the events! The NIV Study Bible helps concur with this:

Some, who hold that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source, have suggested that Mark may have been composed in the 50's or early 60's. Others have felt that the content of the Gospel and statements made about Mark by the early church fathers indicate that the book was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (NIV Study Bible, Commentary on Mark pg. 1488)

Osama is deriving his information about the Gospel's authorship from outdated sources from the late 1800's. Notice that the NIV says no such thing as he claim. Also look at his defense, "what ever Christian you talk too"? So he is basing his whole information on hearsay!! This is not only hilarious but is the fallacy of appealing to dubious and unknown authority. We wonder what Christian did he ask this question? A Muslim Christian? Hilarious!!!

My response:

Even if we were to take your argument that the book of Mark, the first gospel in the NT, was written around 50 to 60 A.D., then this still a too much time of long delay to preserve the Truth! 50 to 60 years is more than 1/2 century. That's a lot of time! You need to know that the Bible was first communicated by words of mouth. Man's alterations and opinions and innovations had littered the Bible:

From www.answering-christianity.com/sake4.htm

Notice that Osama argues under a fallacy here:

Even if we were to take your argument that the book of Mark, the first gospel in the NT, was written around 50 to 60 A.D., then this still a too much time of long delay to preserve the Truth!

This is the fallacy of begging the question in assuming that something written down later is too long to preserve the truth. What evidence is this statement based on Osama? Have you been able to show us where ancient documents have been wrong after they been written down later? Also the disciples and followers of Christ would still be alive here. John the Apostle lived past 90 AD. Also notice that Osama tries to downplay the fact that his lies of the Gospel, being 150-300 years later, were soundly refuted. But yet he claims to go to the NIV for proof. When the proof doesn’t say what he wants it to say he either doesn’t quote it or he says “well okay let’s assume that it’s correct it’s still got to be wrong because I have to always be right”.

As for his link < www.answering-christianity.com/sake4.htm>

Such nonsense has been addressed about bible corruption here:

http://answer-islam.org/Biblefictionrebuttal.html

http://answer-islam.org/bibleisntcorrupt.html

http://answer-islam.org/uncorruptedbible.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic1.htm

We would like to see Osama address these particularly the last link by Sam Shamoun which uses his own Islamic sources against the silly theory of “Bible corruption”.

He wrote:

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

Osama again is interpolating the NIV commentary verse by claiming that "John Mark was the Sole author of this Gospel" Then he rambles on about how Christian cults use posionous snakes in their worship. He is so desperate to prove his idea of Bible corruption until he has to resort to using christian cults which he sees on the X-Files to debunk Christianity!! Maybe we should relieve his folly and tell him that serpents in the Bible doesn't always refer to literal snakes, but devils also.

My response:

Quennel Gale intentionally did not paste the following paragraphs:

"If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

Care to respond to these two paragprahs Quennel?

In regards to serpents, only a person full of deceptions such as yourself would try to twist the word's meaning to push his lie. Serpents mean snakes. Your Bible issues that challenge and it utterly failed and is still failing to meet it.

Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".

Osama claims that I didn’t respond to his last two paragraphs, Needless to say that my article was written over a year ago with minor facelifts by Sam Shamoun. Osama was obviously aware of this fact and this is why he updated his material to claim that I didn’t write a response to it. I can even have Jochen take picture photos of Osama’s original article in this section and then show how he updates his material without informing us of this matter. Since Osama knows very well in how to reach me by email as well as the discussion board we debate on, we find it strange that he didn’t inform us of these two paragraphs.

Also Osama asks this question:

"If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did?

If he read the NIV bible he claims to use then he would see that:

the Gospel of Mark largely consists of the preaching of Peter arranged and shaped by John Mark (see note on Ac. 10:37)

Mr. Abdallah has a bad history of misreading statements since I clearly mentioned in my paper that “Osama again is interpolating the NIV commentary verse by claiming that "John Mark was the Sole author of this Gospel"”. Osama argues under the assumption that one book must only have one author. After being exposed for this flawed fallacy he then tries to respond to me asking me who wrote it using this same fallacy since he assumes that there must only be one author.

He wrote:

Again, more interpolation by Osama. He claims that Mark's ending proves that the Gospel wasn't written by its original authors. However that isn't what his quote says at all. It says

His Gospel PROBABLY ENDED at 16:8

PROBABLY ENDED at 16:8

My response:

Again Quennel, the quote from the NIV Bible reads as follows:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

Tell me Quennel, why was Mark 16:9-20 absent from "important early manuscripts"? Wasn't the whole gospel preserved as a whole by John Mark? Obviously not! In fact, the documentation of this gospel did not happen till 1/2 century later. It is obvious and beyond any doubt that man's alteration, innovations and corruption had entered this gospel. Otherwise, we would not have missing parts of it from "important early manuscripts".

If you notice again, Osama repeats the same material over and over. What is problematical for his argument is that the NIV state that Mark’s Gospel

PROBABLY ENDED at 16:8

Osama ignored this because the theory on Mark 16:8 being the final ending IS BASED ON PROBABILITY NOT ABSOLUTE FACT. Because of this weakness in his argument Osama attempts to shift the burden to me by saying:

Tell me Quennel, why was Mark 16:9-20 absent from "important early manuscripts"?

Even though the NIV clearly mentions that Mark 16:8 is only a probable ending, Osama takes this probable ending and assumes without any evidence that because IT HASN’T BEEN FOUND AMONG EARLY MANUSCRIPTS, THAT IT MUST BE FALSE. The reason it ended at 16:8 could be a variety of reasons. Unlike Osama, I don’t attempt to engage in mindless conjecture and form conclusions based on assumptions.

Osama does this very same thing:

Wasn't the whole gospel preserved as a whole by John Mark? Obviously not!

How exactly can Osama assume that the whole Gospel wasn’t preserved by Mark? Just because it hasn’t been discovered with the long ending in early manuscripts yet, can we assume that it wasn’t preserved. This is the fallacy of arguing from silence. Using Osama idiotic logic we could conclude back in the 14^th century that America didn’t exist because it wasn’t found yet!

In fact, the documentation of this gospel did not happen till 1/2 century later. It is obvious and beyond any doubt that man's alteration, innovations and corruption had entered this gospel.

Osama thinks that because something is documented later it is wrong. What evidence does he show of this? None. If you state that something is wrong because it came later then the burden is on you to prove this statement. Jesus resurrection occurred in 33 AD if the Gospel or Mark was written between 50-60 AD this isn’t a half century in the first place it is only 17-27 years later. Also how is it obvious beyond any doubt that man’s innovation and alteration entered this gospel? Does Osama actually know what these words actually mean or is he just quoting them because they sound good to him.

If something is altered, then Osama needs to show us what the original material is supposed to be and provide us a copy and then show us what specifically was altered. (He hasn’t done this in his paper)

Also what did they innovate from the original text? Apparently Osama doesn’t know this either for if he truly did he would have presented us manuscripts and said “HEY THIS IS WHAT THEY CHANGED HERE FROM WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE”. But Osama can only prescribe to conspiracy theories and misquotes of Bible commentaries.

Osama continues:

From www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_false_prophecies.htm

False and failed Prophecies about the Hour put in the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament:

The sections of this article are:

1- Jesus' false prophecies in Mark 13.
2- The Jesus of Islam is not a liar.
3- Conclusion. My advise to the reader.

Jesus' false prophecies in Mark 13:

The Idea of Jesus false prophecies is well documented and answered below:

< http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/failedprophecies.htm>

Shabbir Ally presented this material over 2 years ago. Osama needs to do better than just repeating the same old common Islamic arguments over and over again. But yet he claims to read “Answering Islam” and our site! If he actually did then he wouldn’t post such outdated material.

He wrote:

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Really Osama? Lets see what the NIV says concerning whether Mark is the Word of God:

The Book of Acts:

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"

So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?

After all, its just a conclusion, isn't it??

Look at the quote closely, it says EVIDENCE IN AND OUTSIDE THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF LED TO THE CONCLUSION OF LUKE'S AUTHORSHIP. Osama then makes a weak argument saying that this was just a mere conclusion. He then asks if this isn't just a man-made Satanic book. Maybe he forgot to see that the EVIDENCE showed that it wasn't a man made book. As for his idea about the book not being inspired by God Almighty I challenge him to show us one reference where it says that God personally wrote the Quran. All he has is Muhammad’s claim that God spoke to him. Is this evidence Osama? Let’s expose him for misquoting the NIV again:

Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. The earliest of the external testimonies appears in the Muratorian Canon (C. A.D. 170), where the explicit statement is made THAT LUKE WAS THE AUTHOR OF BOTH THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE "ACTS OF ALL THE APOSTLES"... Within the writing itself are some clues as to who the author was: 1. LUKE THE COMPANION OF PAUL...LUKE THE PHYSICIAN. "(NIV Study Bible Commentary, pg. 1643)

My response:

Quennel, you are a total joke! The testimonies in Muratorian Canon are as good as your personal testimony since they came in 170 A.D.; 150 years after Jesus -- a century and a half after Jesus! Need we say more? To you yes, but to the reader, no. I think the reader understands well what I am talking about.

Now if Osama is writing a rebuttal, what type of response is “you are a total joke”? First he chides me about not answering 2 paragraphs which he updated without informing us be yet he ignores an entire section and can only respond calling someone a joke. Also Osama fallacious argues by saying:

The testimonies in Muratorian Canon are as good as your personal testimony since they came in 170 A.D.; 150 years after Jesus -- a century and a half after Jesus!

If this is the case what makes him think that the NIV is any better? Also Osama overlooked the same quotes from the NIV which says:

Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke.

The outside and internal evidence proves that the author was Luke according to Osama’s own historical quote, hence we don’t need the Muratorian Canon. Also Osama fails to tell us how Muhammad who came 600 years after Jesus and his holy book the Quran is any more valid. He only assumes that this is the word of God so it must be true! Lol!!!

He wrote:

Notice that Osama has argued elsewhere that the Bible doesn't have extra biblical evidence to support it but yet when this evidence is shown, including evidence from within the text itself, Osama has to resort to a sudden case of forgetfulness along with misquotes to prove his case. This shows us that his stance from the NIV is so weak that it is simply pathetic. Here we furnish as evidence the comments of Sir William Ramsey. Ramsey, considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists, believed that the New Testament (particularly the books of Luke and Acts) were second-century forgeries. He spent thirty years digging in Asia Minor in order to produce evidence proving that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Holy Bible is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once believed to be a hoax. Dr. Ramsey stated:

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. ”

Ramsey further said:

"Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness." (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Osama shouldn't have a problem with Mr. Ramsey since he used him as a reference in his "History of Man's Corruption of the Bible". Again we see that he is only good at misquoting authors, making them say the exact opposite of what they really claim.

My response:

Again, as I proved above, the Bible was first communicated orally. It wasn't documented until many many years after Jesus! What you have today from manuscripts were never claimed by any person. All you have are mere conclusions that books and gospels were written by certain disciples. But you have no solid proof to stand on what so ever! In fact, the missing parts of manuscripts as in the case of Mark 16:9-20 clearly prove that these manuscripts were altered and corrupted by men. Otherwise, they should've been perfectly preserved with authorship claimed for each one of them.

Both the bible and the Quran were communicated orally before they were written down. Osama even has links on his site which argue for the validity of the Quran BECAUSE IT WAS ORALLY RECITED AND MEMORIZED BY HEART BEFORE BEING WROTE DOWN. Also if the words of Jesus were known orally how does it being written down after Jesus render it false when the same occurred with the Quran? Also what Osama has failed to prove to us is the fact that no early 1^st century group disputed the testimony of Jesus and his words. Why? Also he doesn’t deal at all with the issue of Luke’s authorship here but still tries to use Mark 16:9-20 as evidence that Luke is corrupted. He commits the fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa". This fallacy has the form of "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all.

Notice that his "A" is

Mark 16:9-20 is got to be false proving the bible false:

NOTICE HERE THAT HE IS ALREADY IMPLYING THAT WHAT COMES NEXT IS FALSE, WHICH IS "B":

NOW HERE IS HIS "B"

Luke is also false because Mark 16:9-20 is false.

It is clear that Mr. Abdallah is saying that because "A" is false "B" is therefore false. The falseness of A doesn't allow us to deduce anything about B. Since he obviously misread the quote on Luke, Osama couldn’t answer it and must continue to repeat “Mark 16:9-20” like a mindless parrot.

Osama lists my previous statements on Luke above and then responds:

My response:

Jesus not only promised that the hour would come before the generation he was living among would pass in the book of Mark, but he also made the same promise in the book of Luke:

"Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." (From the NIV Bible, Luke 9:23-27)"

Similar to Mark 13:1-37 as shown above, Jesus in Luke 9:23-27 yet makes another promise that the hour would come before the generation he was living among would pass. It is now 2,000 years after Jesus and the generation he was living among is all dead, and yet, the Hour have not come yet! Need we say more about this corrupted gospel that no one on this earth know who originally wrote it?

Osama didn’t make any attempt to answer any detail of my material. He didn’t answer this

Why the NIV shows that the author is Luke
Why he confused Theophilus
Why on one of his pages he mentions that Luke is the author of this gospel and now he pretends to forget it.

Instead Osama presents a redherring trying to tell us that Jesus had false prophecies. Exactly what does this have to do with the authorship of this Gospel Osama?

Jesus prophecies could be false and Luke could still be the author of this gospel.
Jesus prophecies could be true and Luke may not be the author of this gospel.

Since we already shown that false prophecies about Jesus are false we present this link again:

< http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/failedprophecies.htm>

Shabbir Ally presented this material over 2 years ago. Osama need to do better than just repeating the same old common Islamic arguments over and over again. But yet he claims to read “Answering Isla