Readers' Feedback


Page 2 of 3

Generated : 21st May 2024


Vivin Suresh Paliath


I like your site a lot - especially the part about languages and linguistics. I like reading about the evolution and history of different languages. You've done a good job putting up all this information!

On your religion page, I am not sure about your definition of Hinduism as polytheistic. In Hinduism, you have the concept of "Brahman" - the supreme spirit who wished to be many hence giving different representations in the form of different Gods. All these different Gods are manifestations of that one supreme spirit and in the end, everyone is part of that one supreme spirit. So in that sense, wouldn't Hinduism be a monotheistic religion with polytheistic aspects? (Like the Trinity in Christianity)

Just my two cents!

KryssTal Reply: Namaste,

Thank you for your comments. I will add them to my readers' feedback page. "Just my two cents!" ?? Shouldn't that be "my two rupees worth" ? :)

* * * * * * *

It's me again!

You've got your definitions of Kali and Durga slightly mixed up on your Religion page. Kali and Durga are manifestations of Devi. She is gentle and kind, but can be angry and dynamic as well. Durga is one of the manifestations of Devi while Kali is another one (a darker side). Durga and Kali are not the same. Durga is sort of a "Warrior Goddess" (closest approximation can be Athena). Kali represents the Dark Side of Devi's power. She is also not "evil". She is just a ferocious and terrible form of the Devi. There are many manifestations of the Devi and many forms are worshipped by Hindus all over India.

Another form of Devi is "Shakti" which basically means strength or power. This is a formless entity. offers a lot more information.



First I would like to adress the contridiction about exod 20:13 and Exod 32:27 you have taken these words out of contex and you also have your definitions confused. In the first quote you have here it says though shall not murder. Murder has many definitions as even American law states. Here it means not to think about killing another person or in a fit of anger to kill them. But in the second passage it is God telling them to action out of justice. God uses people to do his means.

I ask you to think about these things more carefully before you publish them. By doing this you are liably to lead people downm the wrong path and away from the one true God. So in the futre if you think you have found a contridiction please make shure it is true before you publish it. I will also look over the rest and with the help of others at my church find the true meaning and send you a reply about the others on your site.


P.S, If you have another opinion about this please feel free to e-mail me back about this whenever you would like.

KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your email.

I am glad to see that you are debating these matters in your church. Debate and discussion is the point of my web site. By the way, I do not live in the USA so I do not see what "American law" has to do with me.


Naveen Jain (email with-held by request)

Do some more research. There are 2 types of Jain and many ways to follow a religion. What you consider ridiculous is obvious bias and should be removed from your page. Do more research on Jainism. What you have posted is almost false information and gives a ludicrous representation of one of the worlds great religions. Also there are many Jains outside of India. If you had done any research at all beyond encyclopedia britanica you would realize that.

KryssTal Reply: Please educate me rather than attack me. All religions have ridiculous elements to outsiders.


John Sims

I enjoyed your math section on your site but disagree with your bible contradictions.

KryssTal Reply: What do you disagree with - that they are accurately listed or that they are actually contradictions?

If you are interested in discussing them with someone please contact Bob or Gretchen Passintino on

Thanks for the math info. JOHN

Contend Earnestly For The Faith. How Far Can We Trust The Bible?

By Bob Passantino: Copyright 1992 by Bob and Passantino.

"Is the Bible the inspired Word of God, or merely a number of documents man-written? If it were divinely inspired by an all- good, never-changing God, these contradictions would not be in it...[no wonder that] more than 65 million Americans...are not church members."

This is the statement of the Society of Separationists, Inc., the group of atheists following the "revelations" of their "priestess," Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

KryssTal Reply: I am not familiar with this group or the people you mention. They are USA people?

Many agnostics and atheists today dismiss the Word of God instantly by appeal to the "innumerable contradictions" they have found in it. "How," they ask, "can you expect us to believe in an all-powerful God who can't keep his own revelation straight?"

These people, however, are speaking out of a deep ignorance. They simply don't know whereof they speak. Most of the ones who cry out about the "millions of contradictions" in the Bible can't list more than three or four at the most of which they have any personal knowledge. The old adage that "many put down the Bible before they pick it up" is sadly too true.

KryssTal Reply: I think my list contains about 30. I have read the Bible (as well as the Koran, Gitta and other religious books).

Aside from those who have no specific knowledge of the so- called contradictions in the Bible,

KryssTal Reply: "so-called"? - I have found these in the King James and The New English Bible. Each one is listed with its chapter and verse so all can be checked.

what about those who actually claim to be able to produce them for our scrutiny? They must be dealt with. It is one thing to say, "No one has every been able to produce one absolute contradiction," and it is quite another thing to be able to back up your statement with evidence.

What would the average Christian do, for example, with Dewey Beegle's Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, which spends a good number of its pages on example of what Beegle calls contradictions? It is from a desire to share the principles I have learned for resolving contradictions such as this that this article was born. There are valid, reasonable, and solid explanations for these apparent contradictions with which we are faced.

Remember, the art of resolving contradictions is only a tool of evangelism. It cannot, by itself, draw someone to Jesus Christ. Only the Holy Spirit can.

KryssTal Reply: 'm afraid you've lost me here - I'm not a believer in spirits. We have different basic assumptions.

However, it can break down some of the prejudices one might have against the gospel. As it is said, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Also, do not be discouraged if answers are much harder and longer than the questions. After all, questions are derived from ignorance: answers are derived from knowledge.

First of all, just what is a contradiction? W. Arndt in his Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (p. viii) says that a contradiction is "The principle that it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same sense....This agrees in substance with the famous definition of Aristotle....'That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.'" In the vernacular we might say, "it can't be a hot, cold, wet, dry, sunny, dark day in the same place at the same time."

Logically it is expressed as "A cannot be non-A." In order to resolve an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, we need only present one other possibility. If one says that he has never stolen anything, we only have to show that he has stolen once to prove him wrong. It doesn't matter if he has stolen once, ten times, or thousands of times. It's still more than never.

In the same way, one who says the Bible is contradictory is saying that no one can ever find any possible solution.

KryssTal Reply: I think this logic is inverted. If we find a statement that says A is B and we find another that says A is not B then we have found a contradiction. To say that this is not a contradiction because somebody may in the future show that it is not a contradiciton is clutching at straws.

As soon as we can bring up even one possibility, we have refuted his contradiction.

. KryssTal Reply: What this is is saying is that if somebody can explain a contradiction (in any manner whatsoever) then it is not a contradiction. So it does not matter how convoluted the explanation is, there is no contradiciton. Strange logic.

Other possible resolutions only serve to increase the ridiculousness of his position. Sometimes there are five or more resolutions to one alleged discrepancy and the believer is at liberty to choose the one he thinks is the best.

KryssTal Reply: So we list as many explanations as we can and the beliver can use any one of them to convince themselves there is no contradiction. This sounds like accepting what fits a hypothesis and rejecting what doesn't fit. With that kind of logic it is possible to prove anything!

Another consideration to keep in mind as we study supposed discrepancies is often referred to as "Aristotle's Dictum," John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity (p. 29) summarizes his dictum as "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." In other words, the author probably knows more about the event than the critic does, and so we should allow him the benefit of the doubt unless we have clear evidence to the contrary.

KryssTal Reply: By this logic we should aquit all criminals if they deny a charge. Only the evidence can decide an issue.

Some of these "contradictions" can actually be viewed as God's way of allowing the Bible to triumph in an almost impossible situation.

KryssTal Reply: This is an interpretation. There is no Biblical or other evidence for this statement.

If the gospels, for example, were exactly the same, the critics would immediately cry, "Scheme! Collusion!" And yet, if the gospels did contradict each other, the critics would cry even louder, "Fraud! How can a true God lie?"

KryssTal Reply: This logic is saying, whatever the outcome or the evidence, the criminal is guilty. If he denies it, he is lying, if they admit it, they're guilty. The thing to be proved has been assumed and evidence is adjusted accordingly. This is faith rather than science.

God has chosen the perfect road between these two positions. He has directed the minds and hearts of the scripture writers to write exactly what he wanted but in their own styles. This allows for differences without contradictions.

KryssTal Reply: This is speculation. Does the writer know "the mind of God"?

That is one possible explanation for the variety of written testimony in the Bible. Another explanation was ably put by Bishop Richard Whately (On Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul):

The seeming contradictions in scripture are too numerous not to be the result of design; and doubtless were designed, not as mere difficulties to try our faith and patience, but as furnishing the most suitable mode of instruction that could have been devised, by mutually explaining and modifying or limiting or extending one another's meaning....Instructions thus conveyed are evidently more striking and more likely to arouse the attention; and also, from the very circumstance that they call for careful reflection, more likely to make a lasting impression.

KryssTal Reply: This is speculation. What it is saying is that there are contradictions but there are there deliberately. This is like saying that all the evidence to aquit has been placed there to prove guilt.

We should never forget that just because we do not have a particular answer is no reason to admit defeat and say there is no answer.

KryssTal Reply: This is equivalent to saying, there is an unexplained observation therefore UFOs exist.

Many young Christians have started to read the Bible only to put it down in frustration with their faith damaged because they were unable to answer their own questions about Bible passages that apparently had problems. None of us knows all of the answers. I have not read everything written on alleged discrepancies or their resolutions and yet I can confidently say that since I began my study I have never found a "contradiction" that I have not been able to either answer myself or find an answer for.

KryssTal Reply:From the list in my web page:

Was man created before or after the beasts? How many beasts should be taken into the ark? Should slavery be allowed? Has any man seen God at any time? Did Satan or God move David to "number Israel"? Did Michal have children? Should children suffer for the sins of their fathers? Who was Joseph's father?

If I were unable to find an answer, the testimony of my previous experience would lead me to doubt my own study, not to doubt the Bible ("In the multitude of counsel there is wisdom--" Proverbs 11:14; 15:22; 24:6).

Finally, there is a much more direct way to answer the common objections to the inerrancy of the Bible. Christianity is unique among all of the religions of the world. All religions make sweeping claims about truth and reality and yet none except Christianity can point to historical evidence to verify those assertions. Christianity claims that God has revealed himself to us through his written Word and in the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1).

Christianity has proved this claim in the historically verifiable event of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

KryssTal Reply: I'm not sure about this. Most Christians are Christians because they live in Christian countries. USA is mainly Christian. Had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be singing the praises of Islam and the Koran.

Although it is not my purpose in this article to explore this area of defending the Christian faith, this has been done capably in several books that are readily available to Christians.[1] Once we have proved that Jesus is God the Son by his historical bodily resurrection (Romans 1:3, 4), then we need only verify that he supports the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures. If he said that the Bible is without error, then there cannot be any genuine contradictions in it.

KryssTal Reply: This is like a crininal saying "I am telling the truth therefore aquit me". To say that a document has no contradictions because it says so is very naive.

Jesus did declare that the Bible was God's infallible Word. He endorsed the Old Testament in Luke 24:25-27, 44, and the New Testament prophetically in John 14:26. Surely the word of God of all creation is more trustworthy than the word of a sinful human critic two thousand years after the events!

KryssTal Reply: This is like saying "if you disagree with me you are a sinfull person". Sounds like the Inquisition to me. The lines above are assuming that the Bible can have no contradiciotns because it is the word of God. It is better to study the Bible and see if the assumption that it is the word of God stands close scrutiny. Contradictions would point away from that assumption.

My approach to this study is perhaps unique. Rather than a hit-or-miss approach that deals with specific problems, my approach deals with principles.

KryssTal Reply: I think what this is saying is that the writer does not want to look at the specifics. But it is the specifics that show that there are contradicitons. This is a very convoluted way to protect the assumption that there are no contradicitons.

The advantage of this method is that when one is prepared with the proper principles, he can answer supposed contradictions he has never even encountered before. Remember, God commands us to not only preach the gospel but also "to content for the faith" (Jude 3) and part of our defense must be to answer those who claim that the Bible contains contradictions.

KryssTal Reply: This logic is very convoluted.

Is the Bible Reliable? by Bob and Gretchen Passantino. Copyright 1998 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

Doubts about the Bible range from how it is translated, what was meant by the writers, how the text was preserved, how books were included or excluded, and its truthfulness. Each of these topics is complex, but there is ample evidence to affirm the Bible's complete reliability.

KryssTal Reply: There is also a lot of evidence to cast doubt on its reliability. I think that any evidence to the contrary will be ignored.

Bible Translations

Reputable Bible translations[1] are produced by careful scholarship in textual criticism, linguistics, translation, grammar, vocabulary, style, and history. Various texts of the original language Testaments (Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament and Greek of the New Testament) are published and generally available, along with documented accounts of how the texts were derived from existing copies over time.

Linguistic scholars work together, ensuring that the original languages are understood and translated accurately into the receptor language. Grammarians and specialists in vocabulary, style, and history are consulted as well.

Some translations, such as the New American Standard, favor "formal equivalence," preserving much of the original language structure and vocabulary equivalence. Sometimes readers have difficulty understanding a culturally, linguistically, or historically unique statement with no close English parallel. Other translations, such as the New International Version, combine formal equivalence with "dynamic equivalence" for culturally or historically obscure texts. Paul talks of the "sinful flesh" in a cultural and religious context that associates "flesh" with sacrifices, but in our culture is more readily understood as "sin nature" (Romans 7:18 NIV).

KryssTal Reply: Is this saying that we don't know what the Bible says because of the translations? I don't see the point the writer is making.

Whether you prefer the literary beauty of the New King James, the complexities of the New American Standard, the concise clarity of the New International, or some other reputable translation, the text of the Bible we have today is essentially what was written.[2]

KryssTal Reply: There are one or two translation errors but none of them is included in my listing. For example "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" should be " it is easier for a chord to go through the eye of a needle". This error came about when the Greek was transaleted to Latin in the 3rd Century.

How We Got Our Bible

The Bible is a collection of sixty-six books composed under inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many authors over almost 1500 years throughout the Middle East.

KryssTal Reply: This is an assumption made by believers.

Authors include adopted Egyptian nobility (Moses), a shepherd (David), a Babylonian official (Daniel), a tax collector (Matthew), a doctor (Luke), a philosopher/rabbi (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). The Bible includes poetry, history, government records, prophecy, dialogue, parables, sermons, letters, and religious instructions. The Bible is written in three languages, Hebrew (Old Testament), Aramaic (part of Daniel), and Greek (New Testament).

Despite this diversity, the Bible has been remarkably preserved, contains no contradictions, and is widely supported by history, archaeology, science, and philosophy.

KryssTal Reply: This is a statement of faith. Muslims say the same about the Koran.

As the books of the Bible were composed, they were recognized by God's people (first the Jews regarding the Old Testament, then the Christians, who also recognized the New Testament books) as God's Word. The books were tested according to the following principles:[3]

At the beginning of the fourth century the Christian churches generally agreed on which books composed the Bible and which books were excluded.This was the earliest time such a question had general significance. Emperor Diocletian Galerius decreed that Christians were to be persecuted and their scriptures burned. It was a matter of life and death to determine which books one would risk martyrdom for. By the end of the fourth century the Bible as we know it was formally recognized by all Christian churches.[5] It is important to note that the church recognized the scriptures, it did not determine or make up scriptures.

For many centuries the texts of the Old and New Testament books were copied by hand on papyrus, parchment, or vellum in scrolls or in codexes (books). Professional copyists, or scribes, were meticulous, skilled workers. Convinced they were copying God's Word, they could not alter it in any way. The remarkable preservation of the original texts is traced by comparing our earliest copies of books or portions of books with those of later centuries. Our oldest copies of Old Testament writings are from before the time of Christ, and our oldest copies of New Testament writings may date to before A.D. 70, contemporary with their composition. In addition, we have citations by other authors, collections of scriptures used in church services, and versions in other languages.

KryssTal Reply: The New Testament is not mentioned in any historical document until the early second century.

Critics point to the absence of the originals to discount the Bible, but biblical scholars like F. F. Bruce note, "there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." Slight variations among copies do not obscure the original, Bruce continues, "the wealth of attestation is such that the true reading is almost bound to be preserved by at least one of the thousands of witnesses."6 And although the copies of the Old Testament are fewer, their unique copying standards "give us ground for greater confidence than might be supposed," confirming "that no serious changes were introduced into the text of the Old Testament" through the centuries.[7]

Does the Bible Tell the Truth?

Most disputes about the truthfulness of the Bible can be grouped into three categories: (1) misunderstandings; (2) ignorance of the facts; (3) dislike of its teachings.

KryssTal Reply: I think if you want to beieve, you will believe.

One example of an interpretive Bible problem is the common misunderstanding that "God of the Old Testament" is harshly judgmental while "Jesus of the New Testament" is lovingly forgiving. However, the God of the Bible is consistent from Genesis to Revelation in bringing judgment against unrepentant sin and forgiveness to those who repent. Ezekiel 18 explains, "Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it. . . . But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life. . . . I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. . . . I take no pleasure in the death of anyone .

Repent and live!" (vv. 25-32).

Jesus makes the same kind of declaration in Matthew 23, pronouncing judgment against the Pharisees, calling them "blind fools," "hypocrites," "sons of hell," "full of hypocrisy and wickedness," "condemned to hell." But his loving desire for them to repent is evident as well: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing" (v. 37).

Interpretive (called hermeneutic in literary terms) problems range from misunderstanding the type of literature in a passage (confusing poetry with historical narrative, for example), through vocabulary, to confusing time and circumstance differences between two events. A good book for further information is Walter C. Kaiser and Moises Silva's An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: A Search for Meaning.[8]

Ignorance of the facts concerning the trustworthiness of the Bible can be embarrassing for critics. For example, for many years doubters disputed the New Testament accounts concerning Pontius Pilate. No historical sources outside the New Testament mentioned him, so they considered him a fictional character. Then, in 1961, archaeologists unearthed an early first century theater inscription at Caesarea Maritima in Israel, dedicated from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea," to "Tiberius Caesar."[9]

What the Christians had preserved in scripture and the historic creeds ("suffered under Pontius Pilate), the liberal critics admitted in 1961.

Finally, some say they distrust the Bible when they really mean they don't like or agree with it. However, the Bible has more supporting its truthfulness than does any critic. The historical and textual evidence of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, for example, would compel anyone who did not already discount the existence of God to accept its reality. When Christ endorses the Bible,[10] the wise man believes the Bible, even if he dislikes it. After the French Revolution, political factions attempted unsuccessfully to construct an alternative to Christianity. One individual complained to the prominent politician Talleyrand, who had been a bishop before he abandoned his faith. Talleyrand's response is telling: "Surely, it cannot be so difficult as you think. . . The matter is simple: you have only yourself to get crucified, or anyhow put to death, and then at your own time rise from the dead, and you will have no difficulty."[11]

Translations not meeting these standards are usually produced by those who deny essential Christian doctrine and modify the Bible accordingly, ignoring proven standards of language, grammar, vocabulary, style, and translation.


Lona Carr Breitkopf

I would like permission to use some of the information from your site in a computer program I am writing on World Religions for a graduate class at Nazareth College of Rochester, NY. The program will be used with the students of the high school in which I teach and will not be distributed to others. I would, of course, site the origin of the information and would like to provide a link with your website, if that is acceptable.

Thank you for considering my request.

KryssTal Reply: That is acceptable.


Mike Ward

I have looked at you're sight. I have only one comment. You should read ! Corinthians 2:12-14..."Now we have recieved not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of GOD; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of GOD. Which things we sspeak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man recieveth not the things that be of the Spirit of GOD: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".

Kris, I noticed that by you're so-called "contradictions" that you have no discernment of spiritual things. And you can not until you give youre heart to Jesus Christ and trust HIM as you're LORD and Savior. Our birth into this world is one that only equips us for phisical and mental things, but when the 2nd birth takes place we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) to understand spiritual things. The Apostle Paul never understood CHRIST and HIS church (and persecuted them in the process) until HE met CHRIST, then he could understand and discerned spiritual things. Jesus, also taught in parabels, because the natural mind and unbelievers could not understand spiritual things (Mark 4:9-13).

Kris, GOD loves you and when you place you're faith in JESUS CHRIST then you can understand the BIBLE. I will add you're name to our church prayer list. We have a real praying Church. We will ask GOD to save you. Then as Paul you can do more for CHRIST than you are now doing against HIM.


KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your comments. I think we have a major difference of approach here. You seem to be assuming the truth of the Bible whereas I look at it as another written document to analyse. It's history and content are fascinating. Most people belong to a particular religion not because they have looked at all of them and eliminated the others but because it's part of their culture.

English, Portuguese, Italian, Russian and Spanish speakers (amongst others) in the world tend to be Christian. Most Arab, Turkish and Iranian speakers are Muslim. Most Hindi, Nepali, Gujerati and Tamil speakers are Hindus. Punjabi speakers are either Muslim, Hindu or Sikh depending on which side of the border of India and Pakistan they were born in. Most Thai and Burmese speakers are Buddhist.

Religion is a cultural phenomenon rather than a Universal one. Had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be praising Allah to me now.

I may be praising Allah if I grew up in Saudi Arabia, but it would only be because I had never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, for the scriptures say "How then can they call on HIM in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in HIM of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD of GOD" (Romans 10:14 and 17).

It takes hearing the WORD of GOD with an open heart and desire for the truth. Kryss, I ask you only one thing and that is to take the BIBLE and read through the book of John's Gospel in the New Testament, and before you read each day ask GOD if you are real, show me in these passages.

I too was not a believer until August of 1989. I went to a church but was not a Christian. BUT one day I heard the WORD, it spoke to my open heart that was searching. Kryss, HE will speak to you also. "For GOD so loved the whole world that HE gave HIS only begotten SON that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perrish but have everlasting life!" (John 3:16) He loves you too. He is awsome and changes lives. Just give HIM a chance with you're life.

KryssTal Reply: As I said - different assumptions. For you the Bible is the literal word of God, for me it's a human document.

What do you have to stand on? Where did you come from? Where did the meteors that crashed togeather come from? Who made them? Where did the tadpoes come from and the monkeys or apes?

One time an atheist was dieing in a hospital and his friend next to him said "Fred, hold on!!!, Don't die, Fred, Hold On!!!" And Fred said as he was slipping away, " John, I have nothing to hold onto", and he died without GOD and any hope whatsoever.

Kryss, what is youre hope passed the grave? And what do you base it upon?

Is what you base it upon faultless? The Bible is a timeless truth that has been discussed and cussed, but every year more archeological findings are backing it up. Every day a persons life is radicaly changed when saved, and the world can not explain it. We may argue over a book but you can not argue over a changed life. The Bible tells of the Earth being round 3000 years before men discovered the earth was not flat. The Bible told the importants of the blood giving life 3000 years before doctors ever discovered it. Where do you live? And what is it like there? I live in Mississippi, that is in the southern part of the states, and things are slow and country here.

Talk To You Later.


Mohamed Mohidin Habibullah

Islam began in the Arabian Peninsula during the 7th century AD. It was devised by Mohammed, a local leader who attempted to combine Judaism and Christianity. Muslims believe that Islam was revealed to Mohammed by one of the angles, Gabriel

The above is the statement given by yourself reagrding the Islamic religion. What I would like to pint out are the followings:

Firstly, you mentioned that Islam was DEVISED by Muhammad. This is totally unacceptable as Muhammad has no formal education. He was a trustworthy trader so he could not in any way created a new religion such as Islam.

Secondly, with reference to the first point, he did not in any way attempted to COMBINE the religions of Judaism and Christianity.

Muhammad became a prophet at around 610AD at about 40 years old. Before then, he had already practised the religion of Prophet Abraham by praying twice a day at Mount Hira'. On one of those days, he was met by Angel Gabriel who revealed to him that he was to be the final prophet and the religion that he will spread out is Islam. This religion of Islam was revealed to Muhammad by Gabriel from Allah.

Therefore, I would really appreciate if you could make the necessary changes to the above statement. I would thing that you would be guilty of the wrong usage of words rather that any malice intended. Also, if you are a muslim as you have started with the Islamic wordings in start of your web-page, I would suggest that you review the history again as this might cause misconceptions to the people who have no prior knowledge on Islam.

I am grateful for your time.

Thank You.

KryssTal Reply: Thank you for writing. All the religions are written from an outsiders' perspective.


Todd Martin

Please come by and visit my web page and let me know what you think. I am trying to get God's Word out to everyone that will read and listen.

All comments and suggestions are welcomed. If you enjoy my page please vote for my page. Please pass this on to all your friends.


Jim Stifler Ph.D.


I just wanted you to know that I have used some of the material found on your webpage under Religions of the World to provide eight 11-year old students at our church here in San Francisco with an overview of world religions.

I really appreciate your unbiased and well-worded descriptions on the world's major religions. It will be a good place to start for today's Sunday school lesson.

Thank you very much for assembling this information.

KryssTal Reply: Glad it was of use.


Ryan Thiessen

Here is another one for your wonderful list. If you are still keeping track.

Matthew 27

5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money."
7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1

18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

© 2024, KryssTal