- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,078
Answering Muslim Questions on Christianity
Part II
Part III
Q1: Why do you trust the Old Testament?
A: Both scripture and archaeology indicate there are no significant changes in our copies today for at least five reasons:
1. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Matthew 24:35. Ultimately we have to believe either God is trustworthy or He is not.
2. Jesus and the New Testament confirmed the Old Testament scriptures in Matthew 19:4; 22:32,37; 39; 23:35; Mark 10:3-6; Luke 2:23-24; 4:4; 11:51; 20:37; 24:27,44
3. Archaeological evidence: In the Septuagint, the Torah was translated into Greek around 400 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from about 100 B.C. to after the time of Christ, and we can compare them with our Bibles today. Aramaic Targums are translations made around the time of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are about 95,000 fragments from 867 manuscripts of the Old Testament and other writings. About 1/3 of the Dead Sea scrolls are manuscripts of the Old Testament according to The NIV Study Bible p.1432. Archaeology shows the Bible Jesus knew was preserved. Nahal Hever is a cave near Engedi, that has a fragment written between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. of the minor prophets in Greek. At Masada, there was a copy of Joshua dated 169-93 B.C. The Nash Papyrus, dated 150 B.C., contains the Ten Commandments. The wadi Muraba’at scroll of the Minor Prophets is from c. 132 A.D.
4. Early church writers, as early as 97 A.D., extensively referred to the Old Testament.
5. Jewish scribes, even though hostile to Christianity, preserved the same Old Testament found in every Protestant Bible today.
As a side note for Muslims, Sura 4:150-151 says, "Those who deny Allah and his messengers, and wish to separate between Allah and his messengers, Saying: ‘We believe in some but reject others’: and wish to take a course midway, (151) They are in truth unbelievers;..."
Sura 3:48 says, "And Allah will teach him [Jesus] the book and Wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel." If Jesus were taught the Old Testament, and we have the Old Testament from the time of Jesus, then Jesus was taught what we have.
Sura 3:50 says, "I [Jesus] have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. ... I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me." People have a near impossible time trying to do the following.
Sura 5:47 says, "Let the People of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed Therein...." If the People of the Gospel are to judge by what God has revealed in the Gospel, then how can the Gospel they are to judge by not be the Gospel God told them to judge by?
Sura 5:48 says, "To thee (People of the Book) We sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that hath come to thee...."
Sura 15:9-10 says "We have, without doubt, Sent down the Message; And We will assuredly Guard it [from corruption]. We did send messengers before thee Amongst the sects of old:" Sura 15:9 does not say just the "Qur’an" was guarded, but "the message."
In summary, God is Almighty, All-knowing, and far from careless. We can trust that He has always preserved right direction for those who look to follow wherever He leads.
Q2: Can we trust the New Testament?
A: Yes, there five reasons similar to the previous, ranging from trust that God would not allow His children to be totally deceived, to extensive manuscript evidence.
1. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Matthew 24:35. We can trust God.
2. Very old manuscripts preserved include:
<dir> 1. Additional proof that the New Testament was disseminated throughout the Roman world very early.
2. There were no major changes from what we have today
3. The key doctrines, divinity of Christ, etc. in our Bible today were in the earliest Bibles too.
</dir> As a contrast with Islam, there are only a few Qur’ans preserved prior to ‘Uthman’s standardization. Even one of these had two fewer suras than modern Qur’ans.
3. A large number of manuscripts preserved include
8 more manuscripts around 300 A.D.
10,000 total Greek manuscripts
14,000 additional manuscripts in other languages
This shows us two things:
<dir> 1. We precisely know every word of the original New Testament with about a 97.3% certainty.
2. Even the 2.7% variations show there were no significant changes that affected Christian doctrine.
</dir> As a contrast with Islam, Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Tabari, and The Fihrist to a Suras and verses that used to be in the Qur’an but are not anymore.
4. Early church writers, extensively referred to the New Testament. For example, Clement of Rome, writing 97/98 A.D., referred to many passages in the book of Hebrews.
5. Even heretics support the reliability of the scriptures. One early Gnostic heretic named Tatian (110-170 A.D.) wrote a "harmony" of the gospels, leaving out the parts that showed Jesus was a man. An Arian heretic named Ufilas translated the Bible into Gothic around 250 A.D. He had every incentive to "tone" down the many parts of the Bible that showed a high view of Jesus, yet he did not. Ufilas’ translation is a faithful rendering.
Q3: In Gen 16:1, since Abraham and Sarai had no children, how could Abraham have more children after Isaac?
A: Genesis 16:1 shows it was Sarai, not Abraham, who was sterile. Abraham had more children, but Sarai did not. See When Critics Ask p.54 for more info. You know, Abraham was certainly an interesting man. Here was this man in a culture that worshipped false gods, called by the True God to leave and follow Him to an unknown place, and Abraham left what He knew and followed the True God. Today we should do the same.
Q4: In Gen 16:1-4, why did Abraham [allegedly] commit adultery with Hagar?
A: No, Ishmael was not the product of adultery. Four points to consider in the answer.
Concubines were legal: Polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a concubine. So what Abraham did was "legal" according to both God had revealed to Him and later Mosaic Law, as well as Mesopotamian law of the time.
Similar examples: Furthermore this is not so unusual as it might seem to some modern readers. According to Hard Sayings of the Bible p.121-122, similar examples of a maidservant standing in for a barren wife are found in the laws of the Code of Hammurabi, the Nuzi Tablets, the Alalakh Tablets, and the Mari Tablets. However, if something is both commonly practiced and "legal", that does not necessarily mean it pleases God. Genesis 16:4-5 shows that Sarah soon regretted her action.
Hagar was proud of her status: Moreover, when Hagar became Abram’s wife, she did not object. In fact, Hagar was proud of her pregnancy and taunted Sarai. (Genesis 16:4,5) In the Old Testament, while marrying a captive was OK, nowhere was sex outside of marriage justified as anything but wicked immorality.
In contrast, Muslims are permitted to force their captives to have sex with them, even though they are not married to them. See theBukhari Hadiths vol.3 book 34 ch.113 prior to no.437 p.239; vol.3 book 34 ch.111 no.432 p.237 for more info.
In conclusion, God is holy, Abraham was not an adulterer, and Christians have an even higher standard of holiness than Mohammed had for his companions in the Hadiths.
Q5: In Gen 22:1-18, could the boy who Abraham almost sacrificed be Ishmael, not Isaac, as Muslims claim? Otherwise, how could Isaac be Abram’s "only son"?
A: It was Isaac who was sacrificed and not Ishmael for at least four reasons:
Even the Qur’an does not say it was Ishmael: Genesis 22:2 says it was Isaac. For Muslims, while the Muslim Qur’an discusses this in Sura 37:99-111, no where in the entire Qur’an does it say whether it was Ishmael or Isaac.
Only boy Abram had at the time: Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born. Hagar and Ishmael were sent way to a different place the day Isaac was weaned in Genesis 21:8-10. Abraham was tested "a long time" after this in Genesis 21:34, and a "boy" was on the altar in Genesis 22:12.
Only heir: Isaac was the only heir, and only son also means "beloved son". While the culture of the time accepted taking concubines for procreation, inheritance and the right of the firstborn would go to sons of actual wives, not the sons of concubines. See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.141 for more info.
Only son of promise: Genesis 21:12 says, "though Isaac your offspring shall be reckoned". Abraham had other sons too, but they were born after this.
Q6: In Gen 32:24-30, is the Allah of Christianity so weak that He takes all night to wrestle Jacob?
A: First of all it was God’s angel (whom Jacob called a man), not God Himself who wrestled. Jacob said He saw God face to face, but Jacob only encountered God through the angel. Regardless though, God sent this angel, who had the power to crush Jacob.
If a father wrestles his strong-willed two year old, and even let’s the two year old win at times, that does not make him a weak father. In like manner, God’s intention was to contend with Jacob’s stubbornness, not to destroy Jacob and his tenacity. God wanted to bring Jacob to an understanding of who he was, not kill him.
Imagine how great it would be if your body was the same except that it was 100 times stronger. You could excel at athletics, break through walls, and run very fast. However, every time you tried to pick up a flower, you crushed it, every time you held a little child’s hand you broke it, and every time you held your spouse, they went to the hospital. Maybe just having your muscles be 100 times stronger is not so good after all.
God is all-powerful, but God also has gentleness and finesse. God is infinitely times more powerful than us, but God has greater control over His own strength than we do of ours. Zephaniah 3:17 (NIV) gives an example of how the Almighty is gentle: "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
In 1 Kings 19:11-13 God tells Elijah he will experience the presence of the Lord. It was not in the ensuing powerful wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in a gentle whisper.
So to summarize, Christians worship a God who is gentle without being any less the Almighty.
Q7: In Ex 19:11, was Mt. Sinai really Mecca, since Gal 4:25 says it was in Arabia?
A: Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula; unless Moses had trucks or trains, Mecca would be too far away. Four points to consider in the answer.
1. It does not matter: If Mt. Sinai were really Mecca, that would not make any difference to Christians, except that the stages of Israel’s journey would no longer makes sense. It is apparently important to some Muslims however, as it would give credibility to the idea that Mecca had some part in God’s work prior to Mohammed. However, other Muslims, such as the footnote 2504 in the Holy Quran : English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary equate Mt. Sinai with Jabal Musa, as do the majority of Christians.
2. Different Arabia: In Galatians 4:25 "Arabia" here is not the modern Muslim country of Saudi Arabia, but the Roman Province of Arabia. The Roman Province of Arabia was the Sinai Peninsula, and the northwestern portion of modern-day Jordan, and a small part of Syria. See either The Roman World p.107 or Encyclopedia Britannica under Roman History for a map proving this. As a side note, the Romans never conquered near Mecca.
3. Not Mecca: People with flocks and herds could only travel about 6 miles per day. An 11-day journey around 800 miles from Mecca to Kadesh Barnea, with flocks and herds, young animals, and young children, on foot, would be incredible. See either The Roman World p.107 or Encyclopedia Britannica under Roman History for a map.
4. In the Sinai Peninsula: The Sinai Peninsula is a south-pointing triangle with the mountains on the southern part, which Exodus 19:2 and Numbers 3:14; 9:1,5; 10:12 call the Wilderness ("Desert") of Sinai. The Desert of Sin separates Elim from Sinai. Numbers 33:3-50 tells each place the Israelites camped. Unfortunately, we do not know the location of many of these campsites, but by looking at them, we can see what is between what.
Within the Wilderness of Sinai, there are actually two mountains, close to each other, that fit the location of Mount Sinai.
Gebel Musa/Mousa (7,363 ft) This is the traditional view, at least since about 500 A.D. It has very steep cliffs. The Monastery of St. Catherine is at the foot of this mountain. Many but not all Muslims view this as Mt. Sinai also. The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.674 has a picture of Jebel Musa.
Ras es-safsafeh (6,540 ft 1993 meters) is two miles (3.2 km) north of Gebel Musa on the same ridge. It has a wider plain at its foot.
Gebel Serbal (unlikely): Eusebius (325 A.D.) thought this. However, The New Bible Dictionary (1978) p.1193-1194 mentions there is no wilderness near its foot.
In summary, while Christians and even many Muslims agree that Mt. Sinai is in Sinai, we can be close to God anywhere, and do not need special places, statues of metal, or even black stones to be close to Him.
Q8: In Num 36, why could women [allegedly] not inherit in the Bible? In Islam for example, daughters do have the right to inherit.
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
Zelophehad’s daughters did inherit from their father. This was right and proper as God’s will, according to Numbers 27:7-8. Furthermore, Numbers 36:8 also says speaks in the future of every daughter who inherits land, so they could inherit. Job’s daughters inherited in Job 42:15 too.
Inheritance passing from tribe to tribe in Numbers 36:9 is the issue here, not the prosperity of Zelophehad’s daughters.
The resolution was the daughters kept the land, but they had to marry within their own tribe of Manasseh. In the future, all women who inherited land had to marry within their tribe.
In the New Testament, 1 Peter 1:3-4 shows that all who believe have the most important inheritance of all, an inheritance in heaven kept for us.
As a side note, in orthodox Islam daughters only get half the inheritance of their brothers. Sura 4:11 says, "Allah (thus) directs you As regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, A portion equal to that Of two females:…" (Yusef Ali’s translation p.209).
In summary, since Numbers 36:8 speaks of daughters inheriting land, and Numbers 27:7-8 speaks of daughters inheriting in general, it would be against the Old Testament not to allow daughters to inherit. Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ there is no male nor female, and in the rest of the Bible, old and new, there is nothing restricting a woman’s rights of inheritance, or of economic opportunities in general. In contrast to Islam, women in Christianity have just as much to look forward to in heaven than men.
article: muslimhope.com
Part II
Part III
Q1: Why do you trust the Old Testament?
A: Both scripture and archaeology indicate there are no significant changes in our copies today for at least five reasons:
1. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Matthew 24:35. Ultimately we have to believe either God is trustworthy or He is not.
2. Jesus and the New Testament confirmed the Old Testament scriptures in Matthew 19:4; 22:32,37; 39; 23:35; Mark 10:3-6; Luke 2:23-24; 4:4; 11:51; 20:37; 24:27,44
3. Archaeological evidence: In the Septuagint, the Torah was translated into Greek around 400 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from about 100 B.C. to after the time of Christ, and we can compare them with our Bibles today. Aramaic Targums are translations made around the time of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are about 95,000 fragments from 867 manuscripts of the Old Testament and other writings. About 1/3 of the Dead Sea scrolls are manuscripts of the Old Testament according to The NIV Study Bible p.1432. Archaeology shows the Bible Jesus knew was preserved. Nahal Hever is a cave near Engedi, that has a fragment written between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. of the minor prophets in Greek. At Masada, there was a copy of Joshua dated 169-93 B.C. The Nash Papyrus, dated 150 B.C., contains the Ten Commandments. The wadi Muraba’at scroll of the Minor Prophets is from c. 132 A.D.
4. Early church writers, as early as 97 A.D., extensively referred to the Old Testament.
5. Jewish scribes, even though hostile to Christianity, preserved the same Old Testament found in every Protestant Bible today.
As a side note for Muslims, Sura 4:150-151 says, "Those who deny Allah and his messengers, and wish to separate between Allah and his messengers, Saying: ‘We believe in some but reject others’: and wish to take a course midway, (151) They are in truth unbelievers;..."
Sura 3:48 says, "And Allah will teach him [Jesus] the book and Wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel." If Jesus were taught the Old Testament, and we have the Old Testament from the time of Jesus, then Jesus was taught what we have.
Sura 3:50 says, "I [Jesus] have come to you), to attest the Torah which was before me. ... I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me." People have a near impossible time trying to do the following.
Sura 5:47 says, "Let the People of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed Therein...." If the People of the Gospel are to judge by what God has revealed in the Gospel, then how can the Gospel they are to judge by not be the Gospel God told them to judge by?
Sura 5:48 says, "To thee (People of the Book) We sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that hath come to thee...."
Sura 15:9-10 says "We have, without doubt, Sent down the Message; And We will assuredly Guard it [from corruption]. We did send messengers before thee Amongst the sects of old:" Sura 15:9 does not say just the "Qur’an" was guarded, but "the message."
In summary, God is Almighty, All-knowing, and far from careless. We can trust that He has always preserved right direction for those who look to follow wherever He leads.
Q2: Can we trust the New Testament?
A: Yes, there five reasons similar to the previous, ranging from trust that God would not allow His children to be totally deceived, to extensive manuscript evidence.
1. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Matthew 24:35. We can trust God.
2. Very old manuscripts preserved include:
100 A.D. p6 (fragment of Luke)117-138 A.D. John Rylands (John 18:31-33,37-38)
100-150 A.D. Chester Beatty II (p45)
125-175 A.D. - Bodmer II (p66)
125-175 A.D. p104 (fragment of Matthew)
30 more manuscripts before 300 A.D.
These early manuscripts show three things:100-150 A.D. Chester Beatty II (p45)
125-175 A.D. - Bodmer II (p66)
125-175 A.D. p104 (fragment of Matthew)
30 more manuscripts before 300 A.D.
<dir> 1. Additional proof that the New Testament was disseminated throughout the Roman world very early.
2. There were no major changes from what we have today
3. The key doctrines, divinity of Christ, etc. in our Bible today were in the earliest Bibles too.
</dir> As a contrast with Islam, there are only a few Qur’ans preserved prior to ‘Uthman’s standardization. Even one of these had two fewer suras than modern Qur’ans.
3. A large number of manuscripts preserved include
8 more manuscripts around 300 A.D.
10,000 total Greek manuscripts
14,000 additional manuscripts in other languages
This shows us two things:
<dir> 1. We precisely know every word of the original New Testament with about a 97.3% certainty.
2. Even the 2.7% variations show there were no significant changes that affected Christian doctrine.
</dir> As a contrast with Islam, Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Tabari, and The Fihrist to a Suras and verses that used to be in the Qur’an but are not anymore.
4. Early church writers, extensively referred to the New Testament. For example, Clement of Rome, writing 97/98 A.D., referred to many passages in the book of Hebrews.
5. Even heretics support the reliability of the scriptures. One early Gnostic heretic named Tatian (110-170 A.D.) wrote a "harmony" of the gospels, leaving out the parts that showed Jesus was a man. An Arian heretic named Ufilas translated the Bible into Gothic around 250 A.D. He had every incentive to "tone" down the many parts of the Bible that showed a high view of Jesus, yet he did not. Ufilas’ translation is a faithful rendering.
Q3: In Gen 16:1, since Abraham and Sarai had no children, how could Abraham have more children after Isaac?
A: Genesis 16:1 shows it was Sarai, not Abraham, who was sterile. Abraham had more children, but Sarai did not. See When Critics Ask p.54 for more info. You know, Abraham was certainly an interesting man. Here was this man in a culture that worshipped false gods, called by the True God to leave and follow Him to an unknown place, and Abraham left what He knew and followed the True God. Today we should do the same.
Q4: In Gen 16:1-4, why did Abraham [allegedly] commit adultery with Hagar?
A: No, Ishmael was not the product of adultery. Four points to consider in the answer.
Concubines were legal: Polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a concubine. So what Abraham did was "legal" according to both God had revealed to Him and later Mosaic Law, as well as Mesopotamian law of the time.
Similar examples: Furthermore this is not so unusual as it might seem to some modern readers. According to Hard Sayings of the Bible p.121-122, similar examples of a maidservant standing in for a barren wife are found in the laws of the Code of Hammurabi, the Nuzi Tablets, the Alalakh Tablets, and the Mari Tablets. However, if something is both commonly practiced and "legal", that does not necessarily mean it pleases God. Genesis 16:4-5 shows that Sarah soon regretted her action.
Hagar was proud of her status: Moreover, when Hagar became Abram’s wife, she did not object. In fact, Hagar was proud of her pregnancy and taunted Sarai. (Genesis 16:4,5) In the Old Testament, while marrying a captive was OK, nowhere was sex outside of marriage justified as anything but wicked immorality.
In contrast, Muslims are permitted to force their captives to have sex with them, even though they are not married to them. See theBukhari Hadiths vol.3 book 34 ch.113 prior to no.437 p.239; vol.3 book 34 ch.111 no.432 p.237 for more info.
In conclusion, God is holy, Abraham was not an adulterer, and Christians have an even higher standard of holiness than Mohammed had for his companions in the Hadiths.
Q5: In Gen 22:1-18, could the boy who Abraham almost sacrificed be Ishmael, not Isaac, as Muslims claim? Otherwise, how could Isaac be Abram’s "only son"?
A: It was Isaac who was sacrificed and not Ishmael for at least four reasons:
Even the Qur’an does not say it was Ishmael: Genesis 22:2 says it was Isaac. For Muslims, while the Muslim Qur’an discusses this in Sura 37:99-111, no where in the entire Qur’an does it say whether it was Ishmael or Isaac.
Only boy Abram had at the time: Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born. Hagar and Ishmael were sent way to a different place the day Isaac was weaned in Genesis 21:8-10. Abraham was tested "a long time" after this in Genesis 21:34, and a "boy" was on the altar in Genesis 22:12.
Only heir: Isaac was the only heir, and only son also means "beloved son". While the culture of the time accepted taking concubines for procreation, inheritance and the right of the firstborn would go to sons of actual wives, not the sons of concubines. See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.141 for more info.
Only son of promise: Genesis 21:12 says, "though Isaac your offspring shall be reckoned". Abraham had other sons too, but they were born after this.
Q6: In Gen 32:24-30, is the Allah of Christianity so weak that He takes all night to wrestle Jacob?
A: First of all it was God’s angel (whom Jacob called a man), not God Himself who wrestled. Jacob said He saw God face to face, but Jacob only encountered God through the angel. Regardless though, God sent this angel, who had the power to crush Jacob.
If a father wrestles his strong-willed two year old, and even let’s the two year old win at times, that does not make him a weak father. In like manner, God’s intention was to contend with Jacob’s stubbornness, not to destroy Jacob and his tenacity. God wanted to bring Jacob to an understanding of who he was, not kill him.
Imagine how great it would be if your body was the same except that it was 100 times stronger. You could excel at athletics, break through walls, and run very fast. However, every time you tried to pick up a flower, you crushed it, every time you held a little child’s hand you broke it, and every time you held your spouse, they went to the hospital. Maybe just having your muscles be 100 times stronger is not so good after all.
God is all-powerful, but God also has gentleness and finesse. God is infinitely times more powerful than us, but God has greater control over His own strength than we do of ours. Zephaniah 3:17 (NIV) gives an example of how the Almighty is gentle: "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
In 1 Kings 19:11-13 God tells Elijah he will experience the presence of the Lord. It was not in the ensuing powerful wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but in a gentle whisper.
So to summarize, Christians worship a God who is gentle without being any less the Almighty.
Q7: In Ex 19:11, was Mt. Sinai really Mecca, since Gal 4:25 says it was in Arabia?
A: Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula; unless Moses had trucks or trains, Mecca would be too far away. Four points to consider in the answer.
1. It does not matter: If Mt. Sinai were really Mecca, that would not make any difference to Christians, except that the stages of Israel’s journey would no longer makes sense. It is apparently important to some Muslims however, as it would give credibility to the idea that Mecca had some part in God’s work prior to Mohammed. However, other Muslims, such as the footnote 2504 in the Holy Quran : English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary equate Mt. Sinai with Jabal Musa, as do the majority of Christians.
2. Different Arabia: In Galatians 4:25 "Arabia" here is not the modern Muslim country of Saudi Arabia, but the Roman Province of Arabia. The Roman Province of Arabia was the Sinai Peninsula, and the northwestern portion of modern-day Jordan, and a small part of Syria. See either The Roman World p.107 or Encyclopedia Britannica under Roman History for a map proving this. As a side note, the Romans never conquered near Mecca.
3. Not Mecca: People with flocks and herds could only travel about 6 miles per day. An 11-day journey around 800 miles from Mecca to Kadesh Barnea, with flocks and herds, young animals, and young children, on foot, would be incredible. See either The Roman World p.107 or Encyclopedia Britannica under Roman History for a map.
4. In the Sinai Peninsula: The Sinai Peninsula is a south-pointing triangle with the mountains on the southern part, which Exodus 19:2 and Numbers 3:14; 9:1,5; 10:12 call the Wilderness ("Desert") of Sinai. The Desert of Sin separates Elim from Sinai. Numbers 33:3-50 tells each place the Israelites camped. Unfortunately, we do not know the location of many of these campsites, but by looking at them, we can see what is between what.
Within the Wilderness of Sinai, there are actually two mountains, close to each other, that fit the location of Mount Sinai.
Gebel Musa/Mousa (7,363 ft) This is the traditional view, at least since about 500 A.D. It has very steep cliffs. The Monastery of St. Catherine is at the foot of this mountain. Many but not all Muslims view this as Mt. Sinai also. The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.674 has a picture of Jebel Musa.
Ras es-safsafeh (6,540 ft 1993 meters) is two miles (3.2 km) north of Gebel Musa on the same ridge. It has a wider plain at its foot.
Gebel Serbal (unlikely): Eusebius (325 A.D.) thought this. However, The New Bible Dictionary (1978) p.1193-1194 mentions there is no wilderness near its foot.
In summary, while Christians and even many Muslims agree that Mt. Sinai is in Sinai, we can be close to God anywhere, and do not need special places, statues of metal, or even black stones to be close to Him.
Q8: In Num 36, why could women [allegedly] not inherit in the Bible? In Islam for example, daughters do have the right to inherit.
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
Zelophehad’s daughters did inherit from their father. This was right and proper as God’s will, according to Numbers 27:7-8. Furthermore, Numbers 36:8 also says speaks in the future of every daughter who inherits land, so they could inherit. Job’s daughters inherited in Job 42:15 too.
Inheritance passing from tribe to tribe in Numbers 36:9 is the issue here, not the prosperity of Zelophehad’s daughters.
The resolution was the daughters kept the land, but they had to marry within their own tribe of Manasseh. In the future, all women who inherited land had to marry within their tribe.
In the New Testament, 1 Peter 1:3-4 shows that all who believe have the most important inheritance of all, an inheritance in heaven kept for us.
As a side note, in orthodox Islam daughters only get half the inheritance of their brothers. Sura 4:11 says, "Allah (thus) directs you As regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, A portion equal to that Of two females:…" (Yusef Ali’s translation p.209).
In summary, since Numbers 36:8 speaks of daughters inheriting land, and Numbers 27:7-8 speaks of daughters inheriting in general, it would be against the Old Testament not to allow daughters to inherit. Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ there is no male nor female, and in the rest of the Bible, old and new, there is nothing restricting a woman’s rights of inheritance, or of economic opportunities in general. In contrast to Islam, women in Christianity have just as much to look forward to in heaven than men.
article: muslimhope.com
