The Islamic Antichrist

[RGacky3]

The story of Jesus is a very close retelling of the story of Moses. In fact, the stories of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Saul, David, Jesus, and Muhammad all share many common themes. They even share specific phrases in some translations. Even the story of Joseph Smith contains some of these themes and literary nuances.

I can add more stuff, The stories of Abraham Lincoln, Eugene Debs, MLK, Malcolm X, Ross Pierre and Shaka Zulu all share themes and so on.
Sharing specific phrases in the story of Jesus from stories in the OT isn't suprising since the writers were all Jews and Jesus was a Jew ....

Except for the intentional removal and addition of various parts, re-interpretation according to new cultural norms, translations between multiple languages, and intentional modifications to meet political agendas. The King James version was heavily politicized, and there are plenty of modern versions available heavily influenced by modern Protestant right, especially American evangelicals. Considering that the language we're currently communicating in wouldn't exist in a recognizable form for almost a thousand years after the time we're talking about, it would be completely impossible for the words you're reading now in whatever version of the bible you read to match those from any version then.

I'm talking about the text in the greek ... The westcott hort greek text, from which many bibles are translated, uses manuscripts ALL pre 7th century, infact they come MUCH earlier, the westcott hort, is what we have now, I agree the King James version is not the best translation .... But it's still the same bible that was around in the 7th century.

If all you're saying is that translation changes the text, then we don't have any book other than what was writtein in our mother tongue .... As far as intentional removal and addition ... we have so many manuscripts that we KNOW what the origional text said. if you have 98 manuscripts that say "God sent his only begotten son" one that says "Dog sent his only begotten Sun" and one that said "God sent himself," you know what was the origional and what was better ... that is an argument FOR the authenticity ... rahter than just having 2 manuscripts that say "God sent his only begotten son," I'd rather than more manuscripts with some variants than less manuscripts and none.

We know what the bible said in the first century, go ahead and ask Bart Ehrman if he thinks that the bibles that were around in the 7th century were radically or even significantly different from the ones we have now .... NO serious biblical scholar would say that.

If such a person existed, if he was illiterate like some people say... He didn't need to personally read it, just know what was in it. Mind you, the Quran has gone through alteration and revision, too. It most likely wasn't written by Muhammad, but rather by his successors. It was certainly edited by his successors.

1. You don't know if the Quaran has gone through alteration or revision, we only have the Uthmahnic version.
2. Muhammad didn't write it, Muslims don't believe that, he transmited it orally.
3. You saing it was edited is just an assumption.
4. Muhammad didn't know what was in the bible (or at least the writer of the Quran didn't), and it's obvious.

What's the difference?

Early Christianity never CLAIMED to be independant of Judaism ... No one disputes this, the NT writers quote from the OT consciously and purposefully, since the audience (most of them) would have seen the OT as authority ... plagerism is copying and pretending you didn't.

I'll just pick the easiest one. Is there ever, in a single Jewish text ever written, a mention that the messiah will be a physical descendant of god? Is there even a mention that such a thing is possible? No. The whole father/son thing is 100% from Greek and Roman myth.

Why not learn the history of your own religion? Maybe that will help you understand it better and put it in a context that doesn't require you to dismiss reality. You could still keep the parts that matter to you, like belief in the teachings of Jesus (which are mostly pretty good teachings), without having to think that every single word of a book is true. You can love your neighbor without having to believe in magic.

Jesus wasn't a "physical descendant of a God," the incarnation wasn't anything like an actual physical intereaction between God and Mary, his spirit was transfered. the "Son of God" came from Hebrew scriptrues referencing "Son Of God" sayings and prophesies. The Gospel writers were ALL jews as was Paul, and none of them would have had almost any contact with pagan cults, and paganism is not found at all in the NT, pagan thought did creep in but much much later like the 4th or 5th century, long after the NT was already written, the so called links between paganism and the NT were thrown away by critical scholars early last century ... why? Because they were simply not there, if you look closer they arn't similar at all.

Jesus Enemies knew he wasn't physically the son of Joseph, and they brought it up way into the second century as a slur against him. The ACTUAL source is Psalms 2 ... which is the actual verse quoted when God blesses Jesus and says.

"“You are my son;
today I have begotten you."

Don't tell me to "learn the history of my own religion," I've been studying the scriptures of the bible for years, I've read books on the bible from both skeptical and believing scholars, I don't take this lightly. Also serious biblical exegesis isn't "every word is true" or "it's all metaphorical" it's much more nuanced than that. If you're going to be condesending to me about understanding the scriptures, you better have at least studied them honestly.

 

[Surtr]

The only real player in the Apocalypse is God, when he orders the four Living Creatures to open the scroll containing Seven Seals. From there, **** gets real, as the four horsemen Conqest, War, Famine, and Death, amongst other things, arise from the opening of these seals, as well as Seven Trumpets, which release disaster and plague to finish off anything that happened to survive the first round (Can't say God isn't thorough when it comes to annihilation) The antichrist is nothing more than an inevitable consequence, and a sign of things to come.

 

[Medusa]

The story of Jesus is a very close retelling of the story of Moses. In fact, the stories of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Saul, David, Jesus, and Muhammad all share many common themes. They even share specific phrases in some translations. Even the story of Joseph Smith contains some of these themes and literary nuances.



Cannot be scientific? You're suggesting that it is impossible to understand the contexts in which people wrote down these documents, or the origins of the stories they were writing? I'm not even talking about beliefs. I'm talking about history. I'm talking about cultural interaction.



That's really a shame, I think.



Except for the intentional removal and addition of various parts, re-interpretation according to new cultural norms, translations between multiple languages, and intentional modifications to meet political agendas. The King James version was heavily politicized, and there are plenty of modern versions available heavily influenced by modern Protestant right, especially American evangelicals. Considering that the language we're currently communicating in wouldn't exist in a recognizable form for almost a thousand years after the time we're talking about, it would be completely impossible for the words you're reading now in whatever version of the bible you read to match those from any version then.



If such a person existed, if he was illiterate like some people say... He didn't need to personally read it, just know what was in it. Mind you, the Quran has gone through alteration and revision, too. It most likely wasn't written by Muhammad, but rather by his successors. It was certainly edited by his successors.



What's the difference?



I'll just pick the easiest one. Is there ever, in a single Jewish text ever written, a mention that the messiah will be a physical descendant of god? Is there even a mention that such a thing is possible? No. The whole father/son thing is 100% from Greek and Roman myth.

Why not learn the history of your own religion? Maybe that will help you understand it better and put it in a context that doesn't require you to dismiss reality. You could still keep the parts that matter to you, like belief in the teachings of Jesus (which are mostly pretty good teachings), without having to think that every single word of a book is true. You can love your neighbor without having to believe in magic.

no, pasha


he was not a literate but he dictated the Kuran verses to his sahabas and all of them had already written down the revelation before the prophet died

kuran itself mentions that this book will never change

nobody could prove there arent different kinds of kuran around .

 

[Medusa]

That's total nonsense, the 7th cneutry version of the bible is the exact same one we have now ... we have manuscripts of the full new testament from the 300s and they are the same bible we have now, biblican scholars have the same text of the bible that was in the origional text of 97% accuracy .. and thats conservative, the other 3% is almost entirely grammer or spelling stuff.

Muhammad didn't read the bible, he couldn't, and in the Koran it's obvious that the biblical accounts are second hand and not from the biblical texts.

The NT, isn't a plagarism of Judaism ... Its an offshoot of Judaism ....

And the NT doesn't borrow ANYTHING from greek and roman polytheism, Nothing, the writers were all Jews.

all religions are rooted in pagan beliefs

monotheism evolved from ancient paganism

l suggest you search about sumerians

 

[The Baron]

It goes like this:

Not according to the book or even the OP.

Not sure about Mahdi, but he seems to be a good guy.

Once again, not according to the book or even the OP.

 

[The Baron]

You can make these parrallels with everything, you can make an arguement (if you are going to play as loose with the scriptrues as you are) that Christ is the Anti Christ. You can argue that the United States government is teh AntiChrist ... you can argue so many different things as long as you are allowed to ignore sersious biblical exegesis and just say whatever you want.

It's obvious what you're doing, and it's reprehensible. This isn't serious biblical exegesis, it's a discusting attempted at hate mongering.

As always, you're wrong. All I'm doing is hopeing for an intelligent conversation based upon a book I have just read.

And, true to form, you show up and dissappoint.

 

[Canell]

Not according to the book or even the OP.

Once again, not according to the book or even the OP.

Well, that book is crap. End of story.

 

[Sharona]

Allah called and said, and I quote, Man that guy is full of it.

I agree and it all depends on one's interpretation of Revelation.

 

[The Baron]

Well, that book is crap. End of story.

I'm so delighted you were able to join this conversation and contribute so intelligently.

 

[German guy]

Islamic Antichrist...

What bothers me about this book and its author is that he apparently wants to play out Christianity against Islam. He's saying that in the future, the frontlines apparently will be between Islam and Christianity, right?

So my posting earlier that all the monotheist religions could be united, should such events ever unfold which then are identified by believers with the End Times, was only partially tongue in cheek.

I have my own religious beliefs, which suggest that eventually, the world's religions will be united, as my religion proposes. That's why I rather see the chance that if this ever came to pass, it would rather serve to unite mankind, rather than dividing it along religious lines. Maybe it's rather and "end fight" between materialism on one side and religion on the other.

As for the argument that Revelation has always been interpreted to point to the present ... that's very true. Always seemed people so eager to apply it to their times, starting with Rome right after Christ's death and resurrection (many say the described events took place in the 1st century already), but it has never been obviously the case. Many even say that as a prophetic book, it's a genre of ancient literature that was never meant to be interpreted literally, but rather spiritually. All nice and fine, can well be.

But even if you aren't a believer, you need to acknowledge the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies. That means when a majority of people very much believes in the literal truth of these prophecies, there will sooner or later be a situation in the world they'll recognize as their fulfilment. Especially when powerful people, actors on the world scale, know about this belief and will abuse and instrumentalize it for their ends.

That can't happen today. In order for that to happen, people must radically turn towards religion, spirituality and even literalism again, especially in the West. That's not impossible. Say, there is a huge disaster of some kind that totally shatters our materialistic way of life, so much it can (at least partially) reverse modern thought of the past 300 years again. A nuclear war, a natural disaster of unknown proportions (maybe some meteor like the one killing the dinosaurs?), you get my idea. Or a total discreditation of our economic, political and social ways. If something shatters all we (well, most of the over-fed, convenient people we are today) believe in, and we realize you cannot eat gold and it doesn't provide hope either -- we'd probably turn back to religion in masses.

It's well possible that in such a post-apocalyptic world, where the mentality and mindset would be completely changed, yet many modern technologies still existed in some form, new conflicts on the world scale would take the form of apocalyptic battles between beliefs and religious systems. Because that's the only way the leaders could sell them and gain legitimacy.

So who knows? If such a scenario ever came to pass, maybe the "false prophet" is a Muslim. Or he is a Baha'i. Or a Christian. Or he's an unbeliever who attemps to control the religiously ecstatic masses, who finally is demasked by the believers.

As a Baha'i, I believe "there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody" (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings, 61). There are rumors among some Baha'i that these events are expected rather soon. And around that time, or thereafter, we expect people joining our faith "in masses". Our religion teaches that all religions are true, and shall coexist in peace. So in case there was ever an attempt to reorganize the world along religious lines, we might have to play an important role in this. Or we would be the outcasts when all others agree on something. You never know. Maybe some will attempt to paint our founder as a "false prophet" (Christians and especially Muslims have been doing that ever since the 19th century already).

But then, probably none of that will happen anytime soon.

And no, I have not been smoking anything.

 

[The Baron]

What bothers me about this book and its author is that he apparently wants to play out Christianity against Islam. He's saying that in the future, the frontlines apparently will be between Islam and Christianity, right?

As I pointed out he is a Christian minister to Muslims. Having studied their religion he has noted numerous troubling parallels that he is brining attention to. He is not the first (or I don’t believe he is).

So my posting earlier that all the monotheist religions could be united, should such events ever unfold which then are identified by believers with the End Times, was only partially tongue in cheek.

Doubtful. Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God.

I have my own religious beliefs, which suggest that eventually, the world's religions will be united, as my religion proposes. That's why I rather see the chance that if this ever came to pass, it would rather serve to unite mankind, rather than dividing it along religious lines. Maybe it's rather and "end fight" between materialism on one side and religion on the other.

Yet, oddly, Islam, the second largest religion in the world, seeks to destroy anyone who does not convert to Islam. Their preferred method of execution, by the way, is decapitation.

As for the argument that Revelation has always been interpreted to point to the present ... that's very true. Always seemed people so eager to apply it to their times, starting with Rome right after Christ's death and resurrection (many say the described events took place in the 1st century already), but it has never been obviously the case. Many even say that as a prophetic book, it's a genre of ancient literature that was never meant to be interpreted literally, but rather spiritually. All nice and fine, can well be.

I’ll agree that people have often thought that the return of Christ is imminent return. These days seem to be a lot different than days of old. I’m not aware that there is anything else that needs to happen before the Second Coming. Mind you, I’m not making any predictions. I wouldn’t dare!

But even if you aren't a believer, you need to acknowledge the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies. That means when a majority of people very much believes in the literal truth of these prophecies, there will sooner or later be a situation in the world they'll recognize as their fulfilment. Especially when powerful people, actors on the world scale, know about this belief and will abuse and instrumentalize it for their ends.

Uh-huh.

That can't happen today. In order for that to happen, people must radically turn towards religion, spirituality and even literalism again, especially in the West. That's not impossible. Say, there is a huge disaster of some kind that totally shatters our materialistic way of life, so much it can (at least partially) reverse modern thought of the past 300 years again. A nuclear war, a natural disaster of unknown proportions (maybe some meteor like the one killing the dinosaurs?), you get my idea. Or a total discreditation of our economic, political and social ways. If something shatters all we (well, most of the over-fed, convenient people we are today) believe in, and we realize you cannot eat gold and it doesn't provide hope either -- we'd probably turn back to religion in masses.

That would seem to be the cycle. People need help and turn to God / God Blesses them / The People forget God / Their lives shatter / People need help and turn to God.

It's well possible that in such a post-apocalyptic world, where the mentality and mindset would be completely changed, yet many modern technologies still existed in some form, new conflicts on the world scale would take the form of apocalyptic battles between beliefs and religious systems. Because that's the only way the leaders could sell them and gain legitimacy.

But I thought you said all of the world religions were going to unite?

So who knows? If such a scenario ever came to pass, maybe the "false prophet" is a Muslim. Or he is a Baha'i. Or a Christian. Or he's an unbeliever who attemps to control the religiously ecstatic masses, who finally is demasked by the believers.

Uh-huh.

As a Baha'i…

What’s that?

I believe "there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody" (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings, 61). There are rumors among some Baha'i that these events are expected rather soon. And around that time, or thereafter, we expect people joining our faith "in masses". Our religion teaches that all religions are true…

Like a Universalist?

… and shall coexist in peace.

Wish ya’ll get around to telling the Muslims so they’ll quit killing everyone!

So in case there was ever an attempt to reorganize the world along religious lines, we might have to play an important role in this. Or we would be the outcasts when all others agree on something. You never know. Maybe some will attempt to paint our founder as a "false prophet" (Christians and especially Muslims have been doing that ever since the 19th century already).

Well, I can’t imagine that!

But then, probably none of that will happen anytime soon.

And no, I have not been smoking anything.

Yea, right! All this “all religions will get along and there will be peace at last” crap! Obviously you’re a hippie and all hippies are smoking “something”!

 

[Manc Skipper]

... Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God. ...

They both share the God of Abraham with the Jews.

 

[The Baron]

They both share the God of Abraham with the Jews.

For Muslims, “Allah” is not a triune god and Muslims deny the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

So, once again, not the same.

 

[Andalublue]

For Muslims, “Allah” is not a triune god and Muslims deny the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

So, once again, not the same.

So do the Jews. I guess Yahweh's a completely different God too. And FYI, there are quite a lot of Christians who reject the Trinity too: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Arians, Gnostics, Chiristadelphians, Christian Scientists all reject the Trinity. Are they the harbourers of the anti-Christ too?

 

[The Baron]

So do the Jews. I guess Yahweh's a completely different God too.

A fair point and I don't know how the Jews handle the Holy Spirit or the Angel of the Lord (Christ) in the Old Testament texts. Maybe someone who is Jewish could enlighten us.

With respect to what the Muslim believe, they simply not the same God that Christians worship.

 

[Ben K.]

My question is why would it matter?

It's inevitable according to biblical prophecy. Unless one wishes to evangelise to Muslims to save a few more souls why is it worth discussing?

 

[Manc Skipper]

For Muslims, “Allah” is not a triune god and Muslims deny the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

So, once again, not the same.

You are simply wrong.

"Abrahamic religions (also Abrahamism) are the monotheistic faiths of Middle East origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[1] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.[2][3][4] They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions[5] (Dharmic) and East Asian religions[5] (Taoic).
As of the early twenty-first century, it was estimated that 54% of the world's population (3.8 billion people) considered themselves adherents of the Abrahamic religions, about 30% of other religions, and 16% of no organized religion.[6][7] The Abrahamic religions originated in the Middle East.[8]
The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. ..."
Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[German guy]

As I pointed out he is a Christian minister to Muslims. Having studied their religion he has noted numerous troubling parallels that he is brining attention to. He is not the first (or I don’t believe he is).



Doubtful. Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God.



Yet, oddly, Islam, the second largest religion in the world, seeks to destroy anyone who does not convert to Islam. Their preferred method of execution, by the way, is decapitation.



I’ll agree that people have often thought that the return of Christ is imminent return. These days seem to be a lot different than days of old. I’m not aware that there is anything else that needs to happen before the Second Coming. Mind you, I’m not making any predictions. I wouldn’t dare!



Uh-huh.



That would seem to be the cycle. People need help and turn to God / God Blesses them / The People forget God / Their lives shatter / People need help and turn to God.



But I thought you said all of the world religions were going to unite?


Uh-huh.



What’s that?



Like a Universalist?



Wish ya’ll get around to telling the Muslims so they’ll quit killing everyone!



Well, I can’t imagine that!



Yea, right! All this “all religions will get along and there will be peace at last” crap! Obviously you’re a hippie and all hippies are smoking “something”!

I was hoping I could have an interesting discussion with you. But obviously, this is not possible, since you are a bigoted person who hates other religions and isn't even interested in different views on the same question. When you keep up this attitude when attempting to proselityze, you won't convince anyone. Just saying.

 

[German guy]

For Muslims, “Allah” is not a triune god and Muslims deny the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

So, once again, not the same.

By the same logic, the OT God isn't the same God as The Father Jesus worshipped.

Maybe Abraham's God isn't even Moses' God.

And aren't you believer? How does your theory about different gods hold up towards the claim that there is just one God?

 

[Medusa]

For Muslims, “Allah” is not a triune god and Muslims deny the Trinity, the incarnation, and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the Cross.

So, once again, not the same.

if there is only one god we must be believing in the same god


no they dont deny anything but quran claims the opposite and thats why they think jesus wasnt crucified

 

[German guy]

if there is only one god we must be believing in the same god


no they dont deny anything but quran claims the opposite and thats why they think jesus wasnt crucified

I agree with you! Christians and Muslims should be brothers. It's really sad that so many fanatics on both sides think that small-mindedness is a virtue.

Religion should be the Cause of Love and Affection

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician.

Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, 40

 

[Logicman]

Wow, it's almost like the folks who wrote that stuff in the Quran had a copy of the 7th century version of the bible (which little resembles any versions we have now) and wrote a slight variation on the same story on purpose! Like, maybe people from one religion borrow stuff from other religions. Kinda like how most of Christianity this isn't directly (poorly) plagiarism of Judaism is borrowed from Greek and Roman polytheism. It's not like Islam and Christianity have anything more than superficial differences, and both have only a few significant ones from Judaism. For being 90% the same religion, you'd think they'd spend less time fighting.

While Christianity does have its roots in Old Testament Judaism and an historical figure by the name of Jesus (Christ), Christianity and Judaism have righteousness by faith, while Islam (the Quram) is a works-oriented religion. Judaism and Christianity have fulfilled prophecies - the signature of God. Muhammud never did any miracles that I'm aware of. But Jesus did.

Lastly, the idea that Christianity "borrowed" from pagan religions like Mithraism, etc., is unfounded and has never been shown to be valid.

 

[Goshin]

Moderator's Warning:

Religious Discussion Forum... respectful discussion... high standards... no baiting, trolling or flaming tolerated. Already some posts close to the line. Hammer. You get it.

 

[Paschendale]

While Christianity does have its roots in Old Testament Judaism and an historical figure by the name of Jesus (Christ), Christianity and Judaism have righteousness by faith, while Islam (the Quram) is a works-oriented religion. Judaism and Christianity have fulfilled prophecies - the signature of God. Muhammud never did any miracles that I'm aware of. But Jesus did.

Lastly, the idea that Christianity "borrowed" from pagan religions like Mithraism, etc., is unfounded and has never been shown to be valid.

The whole "father and son" thing, that the messiah is the son of god, has absolutely no roots in Judaism whatsoever. It is entirely from Roman and Greek myth. Judaism also says very little about faith, honestly. It's all about following the rules. It's much more "works oriented" as you put it. What you think or feel is almost irrelevant. Also, Judaism has offered no prophecies that have come true. In fact, Judaism doesn't really prophecy at all. That's another element taken primarily from Greek and Roman myth by Christianity, and not taken from Judaism. The only thing prophesied by Judaism is the messiah, and the story of Jesus bears almost no resemblance to that prophecy.

The rules of this forum don't allow me to tell you that Christianity is wrong, but I can and will correct your mistaken assertions about Judaism and what Jews actually believe in.

 

[Logicman]

The whole "father and son" thing, that the messiah is the son of god, has absolutely no roots in Judaism whatsoever. It is entirely from Roman and Greek myth.

Psalm 2 speaks of the anointed one (Messiah), and the Son of God. Isaiah 9 speaks of the birth of a son who is called "Mighty God," "Prince of Peace," whose kingdom will never end.

Judaism also says very little about faith, honestly. It's all about following the rules. It's much more "works oriented" as you put it. What you think or feel is almost irrelevant.

Abraham was declared righteous by faith (Genesis 15:6). And that was before he was circumcised and before the Law was given.

Also, Judaism has offered no prophecies that have come true. In fact, Judaism doesn't really prophecy at all. That's another element taken primarily from Greek and Roman myth by Christianity, and not taken from Judaism. The only thing prophesied by Judaism is the messiah, and the story of Jesus bears almost no resemblance to that prophecy.

The New Testament already tells you where it got the Messianic prophecies - from the Old Testament. Not Greek and Roman myths. Just Google "Bible fulfilled prophecies" to see a list of fulfilled prophecies. As for the Messianic prophecies, you can start with Matthew and find those fulfillments. Here's another one for you - the Messiah will be God - includes Rabbinic confirmations.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God

The rules of this forum don't allow me to tell you that Christianity is wrong, but I can and will correct your mistaken assertions about Judaism and what Jews actually believe in.

That's fine, because I just corrected yours.