AbuTwins:
I no follow! No be Qur'an post be this na!

⁷Let's finish this one first before you divert to the Qur'an. Growing up i always hear the Bible is the unmistaken word of God through the spirit! The Holy Bible! So the Bible is letters and documents written by humans who are prone to mistakes?

It's still in line. You created this thread to disparage the Bible and promote your unholy Quran.

The unmistaken Word of God is not the letters but the message of love and salvation that the letters carry.

Everyone was using the documents and information available to him. When Matthew and Luke were written, Mark was around!

Can you give evidence that Mathew and Luke had a copy each?

But Mark was written earlier than Matthew! So it is Matthew who would copy from Mark! Abeg drop that Matthew was among the 12. Do you thing it was the real Matthew the disciple of Jesus that wrote Matthew?

Matthew 9:9 Matthew was writing and mentioning his name like this:
As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax booth. “Follow Me,” He told him, and Matthew got up and followed Him.

He met Jesus in Matthew 9:9 above, where did he get the materials to write Matthew 1-9:8 from when he never knew Jesus?

Of course Mathew is the real disciple of Jesus. The style he chooses to write does not disqualify him in any way. John also wrote the same way.

Even your spirit is as false as what Mark wrote!

Since you don't know what the definition of the term 'false' is. Define 'false', and you'll find that Islam fits in directly by deliberately attempting to sell falsehood as truth. Mohammed saw no angel. The Quran itself is a proof he didn't see any angel. He probably saw a demon. The lies in there are too much.

Mark made a mistake by calling Ahimelech Abiathar. That's human error. A pastor preaching on the pulpit could make the same error if he lacks adequate knowledge but that does not mean God won't use that pastor to bless people. God will still use him to bless people except he deliberately misleads people. That's falsehood. Deliberate misinformation.

Have you heard about Mark 16:9-20 (Longer Ending of Mark) that is disputed and expunged from some translations of the Bible?

Make i create a thread on that later!

You'll tire yourself out and abandon your Abutwins moniker the same way you abandoned your Antichristian moniker. So, create it.

We're not concerned about the letters that kill. We're only concerned about the Spirit that gives Iife.

FxMasterz:

It's still in line. You created this thread to disparage the Bible and promote your unholy Quran.

Where did i mention Qur'an in the thread?

The unmistaken Word of God is not the letters but the message of love and salvation that the letters carry.

That too could be composed of several errors!

Can you give evidence that Mathew and Luke had a copy each?

I actually said Matthew and Luke copied Mark and added some other extra documents!

Of course Mathew is the real disciple of Jesus. The style he chooses to write does not disqualify him in any way. John also wrote the same way.

Since you don't know what the definition of the term 'false' is. Define 'false', and you'll find that Islam fits in directly by deliberately attempting to sell falsehood as truth. Mohammed saw no angel. The Quran itself is a proof he didn't see any angel. He probably saw a demon. The lies in there are too much.

You can create your thread on that! That is beyond the scope of this thread!

Mark made a mistake by calling Ahimelech Abiathar. That's human error. A pastor preaching on the pulpit could make the same error if he lacks adequate knowledge but that does not mean God won't use that pastor to bless people. God will still use him to bless people except he deliberately misleads people. That's falsehood. Deliberate misinformation.

Good admission! Mark made the error not Jesus! I agree 100%!

You'll tire yourself out and abandon your Abutwins moniker the same way you abandoned your Antichristian moniker. So, create it.

Antichristian's material no reach textual criticism of the Bible! I do once in a while copy his materials though.

We're not concerned about the letters that kill. We're only concerned about the Spirit that gives Iife.

If the letters are error filled, the Spirit would be demonic!

AbuTwins:

Where did i mention Qur'an in the thread?

That too could be composed of several errors!

Let me open your understanding. If the rays of the Sun passes through coloured glass, the light you'll see would be in the colour of the glass isn't it? For example, to fill your room with blue light, you only need to cover the white light with blue glass. Agreed?

Now, does the colour of the glass in any way change the colour of the light? No? The light is still white but your eyes see blue by your human perception.

That's how the Word of God is. Humans are coloured glasses through whom the light passes. But while those with physical eyes see mistakes, those with spiritual eyes can see the white light still. The Bible was not written for Carnal men but for men of the spirit. It's the children's food. That's why you need first to be born of the spirit before you can partake of its riches.

I actually said Matthew and Luke copied Mark and added some other extra documents!

Yes you said it. If they copied from Mark, give me evidence that they both had at least a copy each of Mark's book.

You can create your thread on that! That is beyond the scope of this thread!

Not necessary. TenQ and Advocatejare have created threads about it already. I only need to go push them up.

Antichristian's material no reach textual criticism of the Bible! I do once in a while copy his materials though.

Keep deceiving yourself, you liar! You're the same as Antichristian.

If the letters are error filled, the Spirit would be demonic!

The letters are not the source of the Spirit. They're just vehicles for the message. The message, when mixed with faith produces revelation. Then, revelation releases the Spirit.

Mark 2 NWT
But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?

Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Interlinear
πως
How
1525
εισήλθεν
he entered
1519
εις
into
3588
τον
the
3624
οίκον
house
3588
του

2316
θεού
of God
1909
επί
unto
*
Αβιάθαρ
Abiathar
3588
του
the
749
αρχιερέως
chief priest,
2532
και
and
3588
τους
the
740
άρτους
bread loaves
3588
της
of the
4286
προθέσεως
place setting
2068
έφαγεν
he ate,
3739
ους
which
3756-1832
ουκ έξεστι
is not allowed
2068
φαγείν
to eat,
1508
ει μη
unless
3588
τοις
to the
2409
ιερεύσι
priests;
2532
και
and
1325
έδωκε
he gave
2532
και
even
3588
τοις
to the ones
4862
συν
[2with
1473
αυτώ
3him
1510.6
ούσι
1being

Commentary
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. The Greek word επί means upon or unto which could have an underlying meaning depending on the context (italics mine)
©jw.org


Emusan and FxMasterz
Janosky
Maxindhouse
Mightysparrow
Kobojunkie
Abutwins

Aemmyjah:
Mark 2 NWT
But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?

Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Interlinear
πως
How
1525
εισήλθεν
he entered
1519
εις
into
3588
τον
the
3624
οίκον
house
3588
του

2316
θεού
of God
1909
επί
unto
*
Αβιάθαρ
Abiathar
3588
του
the
749
αρχιερέως
chief priest,
2532
και
and
3588
τους
the
740
άρτους
bread loaves
3588
της
of the
4286
προθέσεως
place setting
2068
έφαγεν
he ate,
3739
ους
which
3756-1832
ουκ έξεστι
is not allowed
2068
φαγείν
to eat,
1508
ει μη
unless
3588
τοις
to the
2409
ιερεύσι
priests;
2532
και
and
1325
έδωκε
he gave
2532
και
even
3588
τοις
to the ones
4862
συν
[2with
1473
αυτώ
3him
1510.6
ούσι
1being

Commentary
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. The Greek word επί means upon or unto which could have an underlying meaning depending on the context (italics mine)
©jw.org


Emusan and FxMasterz
Janosky
Maxindhouse
Mightysparrow
Kobojunkie
Abutwins

The word "account" does not appear in any of the Greek texts for the verse to have read "in the account of Abiathar the priest." Where did you bring that word from?

FxMasterz:


The word "account" does not appear in any of the Greek texts for the verse to have read "in the account of Abiathar the priest." Where did you bring that word from?

😂
See as you de reason
Which word in Greek do you know?
Are you aware that each translated word has a synonym?

Aemmyjah:
Mark 2 NWT But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?
Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Your particular kind of delusion is likely beyond mediation!

Aemmyjah:



😂
See as you de reason
Which word in Greek do you know?
Are you aware that each translated word has a synonym?

So, which word in that verse has the synonym "account" that warranted the insertion into the verse?

Kobojunkie:
Your particular kind of delusion is likely beyond mediation!

😂
Go and do further research on the meaning of the Greek Preposition epi
When you're done, come back with junkies

FxMasterz:


So, which word in that verse has the synonym "account" that warranted the insertion into the verse?

Check the Greek manuscripts

Aemmyjah:
■ 😂 Go and do further research on the meaning of the Greek Preposition epi
When you're done, come back with junkies

The blindness is surely strong with this one!

FxMasterz:


So, which word in that verse has the synonym "account" that warranted the insertion into the verse?

ἐπὶ (epi)
Preposition
Strong's 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at, etc

Aemmyjah:


ἐπὶ (epi)
Preposition
Strong's 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at, etc

Kobojunkie
Have you done the assignment I asked you to do?

Aemmyjah:


ἐπὶ (epi)
Preposition
Strong's 1909: On, to, against, on the basis of, at, etc

But there's nothing called 'The Account of Abiathar the Priest". What we have is the account of David. There's no particular story line or sequence that was dedicated to Abiathar the priest. How does the word "In the Account of Abiathar the priest" fit in?

FxMasterz:


But there's nothing called 'The Account of Abiathar the Priest". What we have is the account of David. There's no particular story line or sequence that was dedicated to Abiathar the priest. How does the word "In the Account of Abiathar the priest" fit in?

According to the NKJV, NIV, Amplified , American standard and others, is there anything like the account or passage of of the thornbush? Some use story, some use account, some use passage or record. It could be written or like a story. You can believe a story or testimony of an event on account of your daughter. Abiathar was a loyal companion of David almost his life and may have given eyewitness account of David

Is there anything like account of the thornbush?

Aemmyjah:


According to the NKJV, NIV, Amplified , American standard and others, is there anything like the account or passage of of the thornbush? Some use story, some use account, some use passage or record. It could be written or like a story. You can believe a story or testimony of an event on account of your daughter. Abiathar was a loyal companion of David almost his life and may have given eyewitness account of David

Is there anything like account of the thornbush?

Yes, the story of the burning bush fits in well. There's such an account. A unique and entirely isolated experience shared by Moses.

But there's no such thing as "The account of Abiathar the priest." When you look into the storyline of David, you'll discover that both Abiathar and Zadok were mostly mentioned together, even up till the time when Solomon removed him from the priesthood. If the passage had read 'In the account of Zadok and Abiathar the priests', then, we might still consider it more slightly but even that does not look fitting enough.

We need to locate a unique storyline or flow of events where Abiathar featured most prominently to be able to have such a statement as "The account of Abiathar the priest."

The burning bush story was a standalone story that rightly fits the sentence "The account of the burning bush."

FxMasterz:

Let me open your understanding. If the rays of the Sun passes through coloured glass, the light you'll see would be in the colour of the glass isn't it? For example, to fill your room with blue light, you only need to cover the white light with blue glass. Agreed?

Now, does the colour of the glass in any way change the colour of the light? No? The light is still white but your eyes see blue by your human perception.

That's how the Word of God is. Humans are coloured glasses through whom the light passes. But while those with physical eyes see mistakes, those with spiritual eyes can see the white light still. The Bible was not written for Carnal men but for men of the spirit. It's the children's food. That's why you need first to be born of the spirit before you can partake of its riches.

This is simple physics experiment in the transmission of light! You guys and absurd relativism! So the colored glass scatteres the white light transmitting some and absorbing others.

The eyes just interpret the wavelength transmitted.

The Bible is not the word of God! It is just letters and documents written to people or some people! You said it yourself, it was never meant to be a collated religious book!
Now you are capping!

Yes you said it. If they copied from Mark, give me evidence that they both had at least a copy each of Mark's book.

Why accuse me of what I didn't say before!

Not necessary. TenQ and Advocatejare have created threads about it already. I only need to go push them up.

Okay

Keep deceiving yourself, you liar! You're the same as Antichristian.

Okay then! We hope Antichristian will come back and prove you as the liar!

The letters are not the source of the Spirit. They're just vehicles for the message. The message, when mixed with faith produces revelation. Then, revelation releases the Spirit.

The Bible contains errors! And whatever is error filled can only be demonic as God is not the author of confusion and falsehood! Faith in error! Error-filled Message!

Aemmyjah:
Mark 2 NWT
But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?

Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Interlinear
πως
How
1525
εισήλθεν
he entered
1519
εις
into
3588
τον
the
3624
οίκον
house
3588
του

2316
θεού
of God
1909
επί
unto
*
Αβιάθαρ
Abiathar
3588
του
the
749
αρχιερέως
chief priest,
2532
και
and
3588
τους
the
740
άρτους
bread loaves
3588
της
of the
4286
προθέσεως
place setting
2068
έφαγεν
he ate,
3739
ους
which
3756-1832
ουκ έξεστι
is not allowed
2068
φαγείν
to eat,
1508
ει μη
unless
3588
τοις
to the
2409
ιερεύσι
priests;
2532
και
and
1325
έδωκε
he gave
2532
και
even
3588
τοις
to the ones
4862
συν
[2with
1473
αυτώ
3him
1510.6
ούσι
1being

Commentary
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record. The Greek word επί means upon or unto which could have an underlying meaning depending on the context (italics mine)
©jw.org


Emusan and FxMasterz
Janosky
Maxindhouse
Mightysparrow
Kobojunkie
Abutwins

You're still capping!
Is there any old testament verse relating Abiathar with David and consecrated bread?

That Mark statement is simply a blunder!

FxMasterz:


Yes, the story of the burning bush fits in well. There's such an account. A unique and entirely isolated experience shared by Moses.

But there's no such thing as "The account of Abiathar the priest." When you look into the storyline of David, you'll discover that both Abiathar and Zadok were mostly mentioned together, even up till the time when Solomon removed him from the priesthood. If the passage had read 'In the account of Zadok and Abiathar the priests', then, we might still consider it more slightly but even that does not look fitting enough.

We need to locate a unique storyline or flow of events where Abiathar featured most prominently to be able to have such a statement as "The account of Abiathar the priest."

The burning bush story was a standalone story that rightly fits the sentence "The account of the burning bush."

The Bible makes references to people, books, statements records stories that you cannot find elsewhere.
According to the account of Abiathar could mean Jesus was quoting something that Abiathar must have said that happened to David. Remember that he was the only surviving eyewitness when David came to ask for bread. So he may have reported it and we have it in our Bibles today. So it's not unreasonable to allude to the account of Abiathar cos the story of that event may have originally been from him which was passed on and penned down by someone else.

If you want to believe that Mark 2:26 was an error, it's your own problem

To me, the Bible is accurate and truth without any error cos Jehovah, the God of truth is the Author of the Bible

You that lack basic understanding of English went to do copy and paste.

Aemmyjah:
Mark 2 NWT
But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? 26 How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?

Pidgin
For the story about A·bi′a·thar wey be chief priest, una no read about how David enter the house of God and chop the bread wey them put as offering to God, something wey nobody get the right to chop except the priests, and e still give some to the men wey dey with-am?”

Commentary
At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.”

But the two translations you provided are still saying the same thing.

Even though, the English rendition seems to be clever by half.

Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error.

If my memory serves me correctly, the OP is about why Abiathar even features in the narration when his father was the High Priest.

So I don't see how this address that and by going with NWT this phrase "How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest"... is totally disconnected from the rest of the text.

On what account about Abiathar?

Why is the name feature at all?

Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record.

Which historical accuracy and how does this address OP point?

AbuTwins:


You're still capping!
Is there any old testament verse relating Abiathar with David and consecrated bread?

That Mark statement is simply a blunder!

Abiathar is the only surviving eyewitness of that account cos Saul killed everyone in the priest city. Abiathar was serving as a priest too cos he brought the ephod to David...

Emusan:
You that lack basic understanding of English went to do copy and paste.



But the two translations you provided are still saying the same thing.

Even though, the English rendition seems to be clever by half.



If my memory serves me correctly, the OP is about why Abiathar even features in the narration when his father was the High Priest.

So I don't see how this address that and by going with NWT this phrase "How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest"... is totally disconnected from the rest of the text.

On what account about Abiathar?

Why is the name feature at all?



Which historical accuracy and how does this address OP point?

So cowardly to challenge the OP but he delights to tackle me out of envy

OP was pointing a seeming contradiction which a coward like you cannot say anything even when your friend say Mark committed an error.

AbuTwins:
This is simple physics experiment in the transmission of light! You guys and absurd relativism! So the colored glass scatteres the white light transmitting some and absorbing others.

The eyes just interpret the wavelength transmitted.

The Bible is not the word of God! It is just letters and documents written to people or some people! You said it yourself, it was never meant to be a collated religious book!
Now you are capping!



Why accuse me of what I didn't say before!

Okay


Okay then! We hope Antichristian will come back and prove you as the liar!

The Bible contains errors! And whatever is error filled can only be demonic as God is not the author of confusion and falsehood! Faith in error! Error-filled Message!

The book of abrogation is the error
Does not even know common science where the reproductive fluid comes from

Aemmyjah:
So cowardly to challenge the OP but he delights to tackle me out of envy

You invited me to this thread OP didn't and I've told you that I already once told the OP to search for 101 Contradictions in the Bible.

Remember both you and OP are just doing copy and paste.

Reason why you can't identify those silent point I raised.

Lastly, someone already addressed the OP which I consider plus on the subject matter, if OP didn't satisfy with that, do you think your mumbo jumbo will do?

OP was pointing a seeming contradiction which a coward like you cannot say anything even when your friend say Mark committed an error.

He is not the first and he won't be the last.

I'm very sure, he is copying from one of the 101 contradictions already raised in the past.

Since you have addressed the OP now with your copy and paste, let's see how he will agree with you.

Emusan:


You invited me to this thread OP didn't and I've told you that I already once told the OP to search for 101 Contradictions in the Bible.

Remember both you and OP are just doing copy and paste.

Reason why you can't identify those silent point I raised.

Lastly, someone already addressed the OP which I consider plus on the subject matter, if OP didn't satisfy with that, do you think your mumbo jumbo will do?



He is not the first and he won't be the last.

I'm very sure, he is copying from one of the 101 contradictions already raised in the past.

Since you have addressed the OP now with your copy and paste, let's see how he will agree with you.

Referring him to 101 contradictions is an intelligent way to educate the OP and defend your Bible shey?

Aemmyjah:



The book of abrogation is the error
Does not even know common science where the reproductive fluid comes from

Which kind Jehovah witness diversion be this na?

Aemmyjah:
Abiathar is the only surviving eyewitness of that account cos Saul killed everyone in the priest city. Abiathar was serving as a priest too cos he brought the ephod to David...

This was the OP point:

Jesus was portrayed to have made a mistake mentioning Abiathar the Priest instead of Ahimelek the Priest who happens to be the father of the former!

You can see the point is centred on why ABIATHAR NAME and not his father?

So, have you addressed that?

In other to elevate NWT above other, you turn to translation of others and praise NWT for correct translation.

It's evident that the first person who responded to the OP did a great Job than your copy and paste.

Aemmyjah:



Abiathar is the only surviving eyewitness of that account cos Saul killed everyone in the priest city. Abiathar was serving as a priest too cos he brought the ephod to David...

So where is Jesus quoting from?

AbuTwins:


Which kind Jehovah witness diversion be this na?

Should I list contradictions of the Quran too
Quran that does not know common science

Aemmyjah:
Referring him to 101 contradictions is an intelligent way to educate the OP and defend your Bible shey?

No! Your lectures refer you to Google.

If he had yielded to my advice you won't see him creating multiple thread any contradiction in the Bible.

Or you think this is the only thread created about contradiction in the Bible by him?

Emusan:


This was the OP point:

You can see the point is centred on why ABIATHAR NAME and not his father?

So, have you addressed that?

In other to elevate NWT above other, you turn to translation of others and praise NWT for correct translation.

It's evident that the first person who responded to the OP did a great Job than your copy and paste.

Join your friends that say Mark committed an error and make the Muslim jihadist, Abutwins a champion over you

Aemmyjah:
Should I list contradictions of the Quran too
Quran that does not know common science

And this is the way to go, I thought your reply will make him agree with you.