Search for:
Bible Contradictions Internal Contradictions Of The Bible The Bible

Who Fash­ioned The Gold­en Calf ?

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies have accused the Qur’an of mak­ing a con­tra­dic­tion” on the issue of who was respon­si­ble for the wor­ship of the Gold­en Calf. 

It is fur­ther inter­est­ing to note, how­ev­er, that the New Tes­ta­ment con­tra­dicts the Old Tes­ta­ment on the mat­ter of blam­ing Aaron(P) sole­ly for the fash­ion­ing of the Gold­en Calf. Exo­dus 32:4 square­ly puts the respon­si­bil­i­ty of mak­ing the calf upon Aaron himself :

He [Aaron] took this from their hand, and fash­ioned it with a grav­ing tool and made it into a molten calf.” (Exo­dus 32:4)

Clear­ly in this verse above, it is Aaron who is blamed here. This is also made clear­er when we read in the sub­se­qent vers­es (Q 32 : 5 – 6) how Aaron was respon­si­ble for build­ing an altar to the stat­ue he had just cre­at­ed and made burnt offer­ings to it.

How­ev­er, when we com­pare this with Stephen’s speech in the Acts of the Apos­tles, the blame of fash­ion­ing the Calf clear­ly shifts upon the Israelite peo­ple them­selves, by employ­ing the blame in plural :

At that time they [the Israelites] made a calf and brought a sac­ri­fice to the idol, and were rejoic­ing in the works of their hands.” (Acts 7:41)

Sub­se­quent vers­es also sug­gests the same if it were read fur­ther (7:42 – 43). So who was respon­si­ble for the fash­ion­ing of the Gold­en Calf, Aaron or the Israelites ? That is a ques­tion which behooves for the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies to answer !

And only God knows best.Endmark


  1. it’s amaz­ing how Star­jade claims Samiri means Samar­i­tan. whats more inter­est­ing about his claim is, he is using mod­ern day Eng­lish trans­la­tors to defend his pathet­ic argu­ment. the Ara­bic text is clear SAMIRI” peri­od. not Samar­i­tan. im shocked on why you haven’t shown any clas­si­cal Arab com­men­ta­tors who claimed Samiri is Samar­i­tan. in fact let me help you with this name. Here is a link to an Aca­d­e­m­ic site, where this bogus lie is refuted.


  2. aian jaafar Reply

    hi star­jade,

    the koran dif­fers from the old tes­ta­ment because it CORRECTS the old testament.

    the old tes­ta­ment also dif­fers in some details with the sup­pos­ed­ly pagan sto­ries from ancient mesopotamia, like the expul­sion of man from par­adise, the flood, the tow­er of babel, etc. but these sources (such as the sumer­ian enu­ma elish, which recounts the sto­ry of the flood) pre­date the bible. who ever said that the old tes­ta­ment is the orig­i­nal source of these data ? lest you say that you are not talk­ing about gen­e­sis but moses, then the point is quite sim­ply this : it appears that you are com­mit­ting the com­mon chris­t­ian fal­la­cious inter­pre­ta­tion that since the old tes­ta­ment pre­dates the koran, then the old tes­ta­ment is the cor­rect account and any dif­fer­ence between them would make the koran incor­rect. then why did the ancient mesopotami­an pagans know about the Flood when the bible was not writ­ten back then ? could these pagans be the source of the bib­li­cal sto­ry as well ?

    chris­tians and jews will have dif­fi­cul­ty with such ques­tions, but mus­lims do not. we believe that every nation has been sent a prophet, and that prophet def­i­nite­ly taught them some­thing. those teach­ings may have been lost, tam­pered, or altered, or they may have been abro­gat­ed by God. it is God who is the source of all these infor­ma­tion, in their pure, unal­tered form. i do not care what the writ­ers of the jahvist or the elo­hist text of the pen­ta­teuch say about moses ; what i care about is what moses him­self said. if you will insist that what you have right now are the orig­i­nal writ­ings of moses, then please pro­vide an unbro­ken chain of trans­mis­sion through trust­wor­thy nar­ra­tors that that is what exact­ly moses wrote or said (please do not invoke the lying pens” of the jew­ish scribes, as prophet jere­mi­ah said) thus, we have no prob­lems if you see some­thing sim­i­lar between the koran and the old tes­ta­ment, or any oth­er book for that mat­ter. that por­tion of that book may have been taught by a prophet, so we accept it if it agrees with the koran, not because it pre­dates the koran, but because the Beloved Prophet (saws) taught us about it. as for the dif­fer­ences, it may be caused by alter­ations in the text of the old tes­ta­ment or enu­ma elish, just like what pro­het jere­mi­ah said in jere­mi­ah 8:8 about the law of the Lord being turned into false­hood by the lying pens of the scribes. as for your alleged error regard­ing samar­i­tans, that has been refut­ed by the islam­ic aware­ness team in their website.i am mere­ly address­ing your state­ment which says It is an inter­est­ing point that the Koran account dif­fers from the Old Tes­ta­ment account. The Old Tes­ta­ment is the orig­i­nal scource of the data and yet the Koran con­tra­dicts that Old Tes­ta­ment state­ment.” that would be all. a reply would be high­ly appre­ci­at­ed. may the God of abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob guide us all to the truth. Amen. and God knows best.

    one final note : lest you force me to accept the old tes­ta­ment since i quot­ed jere­mi­ah, then i would like to remind you that the bur­den of believ­ing what is said in the book of jere­mi­ah is not upon me, but upon you.

  3. It is an inter­est­ing point that the Koran account dif­fers from the Old Tes­ta­ment account. The Old Tes­ta­ment is the orig­i­nal scource of the data and yet the Koran con­tra­dicts that Old Tes­ta­ment statement.

    The Qur’an says that the calf wor­shipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was mold­ed by a Samar­i­tan (sura 20:85 – 87, 95 – 97). Yet the term Samar­i­tan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is sev­er­al hun­dred years after the events record­ed in Exo­dus. Thus, the Samar­i­tan peo­ple could not have exist­ed dur­ing the life of Moses, and there­fore, could not have been respon­si­ble for mold­ing the calf.

    It is inter­est­ing to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to Samiri” and Pick­thall to As Samirii,” Arber­ry in the Eng­lish, and Kasimirs­ki in the French both cor­rect­ly trans­late it Samar­i­tan.” Yusuf Ali, in his foot­notes, bends over back­wards” to explain his choice by sug­gest­ing that the name could mean She­mer,” which denotes a stranger, or Shomer,” which means a watch­man, the equiv­a­lent of Sama­ra” in Ara­bic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is look­ing for. Once again we find an awk­ward exam­ple of Ali attempt­ing to twist the trans­la­tion in order to get out of a dif­fi­cult sce­nario, sim­i­lar to the exam­ples of Perik­ly­tos,” or the word Mach­mad” which he uses to sig­ni­fy Muham­mad in the Bible. The Ara­bic sim­ply does not give Ali the lee­way to con­coct oth­er mean­ings for this word. To be con­sis­tent with the Ara­bic he should keep his trans­la­tion con­sis­tent with the text, as Arber­ry and Kasimirs­ki have done.

Write A Comment