Introduction:

"'How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?'" (NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws.

See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did confirm this corruption.

Just who were the real authors of the Bible?

Some of the quotes below are from the Bible's commentary. Before each Book/Gospel, there are few pages explaining the history of it. You will see that most of today's Bible's Books and Gospels are doubtful and unreliable.

After thoroughly reading this article, answer the following questions:

1- Is all of the Bible GOD's Divine Revelations?
2- Did the Prophets of GOD really write the Bible of today?
3- Is the Bible perfect?
4- Did man indeed corrupt the Bible?
5- Is the Bible of today reliable?

If your answer is no to most of or all of the above questions except for #4, then your faith has serious problems!

It has become a growing trend amongst many Christian missionaries to stress that the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus, men who had firsthand contact with the historical Jesus, the "Son of the Living God". As such, we would presume the information contained in the gospels is reliable and accurate eyewitness records of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Christians often wonder, in the presence of such guarantees of authenticity, how it is possible to doubt the validity of the message contained in the gospels. The Christian preachers insist that the four writers were direct witnesses of the life of Jesus and therefore constitute unquestionable evidence for the accuracy of the gospels.

The first point to note is that even if missionaries were able to establish that the gospels are eyewitness records, that in itself does not confirm the reliability of the gospels. Historians investigating any aspect of recorded or verbal history need to carefully scrutinize the accounts of the eyewitnesses and cannot be expected to take them at face value especially when they have mutually contradicting reports.

The second point is that it has never been provided unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next, till it reaches Jesus (peace be upon him) whom the basis of Christianity is supposedly ascribed to. And this is only what will truly reflect his real teachings. Also, where the evidence that the various texts were authored solely by the claimed authors. Then, what about the problems of the reliable transmission and its continuity?

The Third point is that modern studies on the beginning of Christianity show that such claims hardly correspond to reality. Contemporary Christian biblical scholars in light of recent discoveries have demonstrated that the gospels were not as described by Saint Justin "Memoirs of the apostles" but writings by anonymous characters whom for the sake of convenience will be called Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

If then the four gospels cannot be regarded as writings of the companions and apostles of Jesus (at least solely), where do they come from?

The Gospel of Mark:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark." (NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Also we have what support that the Gospel of Mark, which is considered to be the oldest of the Gospels in the New Testament, was not written by a disciple of Jesus. The early Christian scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (325 C.E) referring to the views of Papias (130 C.E) on the origin of Mark wrote:

"This also the Elder used to say. Mark indeed, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, howbeit not in order, all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he (Mark) heard nothing of the Lord, nor was he a follower of his, but at a later date of Peter, who used to adapt his instructions to the (needs of his hearers), but not with a view to putting together the teachings of the Lord in orderly fashion…(Eusebius, Church History III, 39, 15)

Furthermore Irenaeus (180 C.E) states that:

"Peter and Paul proclaimed the Gospel in Rome. After their death, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted his preaching to us in written form" (Against Heresies III.i.1)

From such evidence we may conclude that, firstly, Mark was not a prominent leader in the church, that he was neither a disciple of Jesus nor an apostle and that secondly since Peter died in the year 64/65 A.D, the Gospel of Mark cannot have been written before this date.

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost." (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)

This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.

We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc...  It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

The Gospel of Matthew:

The New American Bible in its introduction to Matthew's gospel, whilst presenting the prominent position held by the majority of the scholars states:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large parts, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this) and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."

The New American Bible concludes by stating categorically that the author is unknown, but it shall continue to be called Matthew for the sake of convenience.

This view is further echoed by J. B. Phillips, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, the Anglican Church of England:

"Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view." (The True Message of Jesus Christ, pg. 23)

In his book Who's Who in the Bible? Peter Calvocressi writes:

"In early times the authorship of the Gospel was ascribed to the apostle Matthew, but since this view has been demolished we are left with an evangelist who, distinct from the apostle, must nevertheless continue to be called Matthew since we have no other name for him."

Raymond Brown in his commentary on the infancy Narratives in Matthew writes:

"There would be nearly unanimous agreement in scientific circles today that the evangelist is Unknown, although we continue the custom of referring to him as "Matthew". His dependence upon Mark indicates that he was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus" (The Birth of the Messiah, pg. 45)

He concludes by writing in the footnote:

"Roman Catholics were among the last to give up defending officially the view that the Gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve" (Ibid. pg. 45)

The Gospel of Luke:

"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)

Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the "Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book. The Gospel itself seems to be a compromising one to the Word of GOD. Let us look at the following:

"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus," (Luke 1:3)

Few problems with this Gospel from the quote above:

1- The author was not inspired, and knew for sure that he was not inspired by GOD Almighty to write the Book since he didn't mention about any divine inspiration, and he said "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..." Where do we see GOD's inspiration in this?

2- The author wrote it for the purpose of "his most excellent Theophilus." Since when we compromise GOD Almighty and document His Holy Words for the purpose of other higher (in rank) human beings?

The New American Bible whilst commenting on the author of Luke's gospel declares that:

"Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch…The prologue of the Gospel make it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples"

Furthermore the New Encyclopedia Britannica gives references to the writings of Irenaeus and Eusibius where Luke is depicted as a follower of Paul's gospel. In the Muratorian Canon Luke is identified as a companion of Paul, but even this identification is widely questioned because of the author's inaccuracies about Paul's career. (The Birth of the Messiah, Raymond Brown, pg. 236)

Furthermore, the following is based on the Catholic Encyclopedia (1) , (2) : If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.

All we can say is that most likely Luke's gospel was written in a church of the gentile mission and this seems to be the majority opinion, which is found in most biblical commentaries today.

The Gospel of John:

"The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)

How is it possible for us to be absolutely sure that it was indeed John who wrote the so called "Gospel of John" when "his name is not mentioned in this Gospel" so we can then take it as a 100% True Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?

Professor R.W.Rogerson an Anglican clergyman and a Canon Emeritus of Sheffield Cathedral, in his recent work An Introduction to the Bible writes:

"The conviction has grown that the Gospel was not written by a single author, but is an outcome of a long process of growth in which the distinction between author and redactor/editor was not clear. This conclusion militates against the traditional view that the author was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, and the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23)." (An Introduction to the Bible, pg. 122).

The New American Bible after reaching the same conclusion further demonstrates why John's Gospel was authored by more than one individual. For example chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; for it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from the rest of the work.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary whilst discussing this issue notes that:

"The author of John 21 clearly does not identify the Beloved Disciple, who is the source of the Johannine tradition, with John the son of Zebedee. John 21:2 refers to "the (sons) of Zebedee", whereas 21:7,20 refer to the Beloved Disciple."

The New Jerome Commentary proceeds to outline further difficulties in asserting that the author of the fourth gospel could be John, son of Zebedee. For instance a passage in Mark (10:39) indicates that both brothers (sons of Zebedee) would suffer martyrdom, yet John 21:20-23 asserts that the Beloved Disciple did not die a martyr's death as Peter did. Also the "developments in Christology and the realized eschatology of the Fourth Gospel are well beyond what would be likely for a Galilean fisherman".

Likewise, Graham Stanton a Professor of New Testament Studies also points out that: "if the Beloved Disciple belonged to the circle of disciples of Jesus from the beginning, why does the first reference to the beloved disciple come only at 13:23?" (The Gospels and Jesus, pg. 124)

Maurice Casey in his most recent book Is John's Gospel True? discusses the views that are generally championed by the Evangelical Christians and proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" that these views are demonstrably false. He finally concludes that: "the Gospel was written by several people when anonymous and pseudepigraphical compositions were normal" (Is John's Gospel true? Pg.176)

Finally, it is also important to note that some early Christians were very suspicious of John's Gospel due to the fact that it is very different from the Synoptic gospels and its popularity with Gnostic and heretical groups. (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg. 946)

The Book of Acts:

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)

So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?

After all, its just a conclusion, isn't it?

Beside, The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as the True Living Word of GOD.

The Book of Hebrews:

"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship." From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition.

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)

So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! The Book of Hebrews is one of the highly used Books among Christians. You hear references from it a lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such highly doubtful books in their teachings.

The Gospel of 1 John:

"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers..." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1904)

"The letter is difficult to date with precision...." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)

If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it? The verse 1 John 5:7 was later discovered to be a fabrication. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles. The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of 2 and 3 John.

The Book of Revelation:

"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8).....In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1922)

Again, we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation. It is certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John. So are you now going to consider the other John's words as the Words and Inspirations of GOD Almighty?

Notice that in the sections of "Gospel of John" and "Gospels of 1, 2 & 3  John" above, the author did not identify himself and it was ASSUMED that it was (Saint) John who wrote them. Now, notice the author in the Book of Revelation does identify himself as John, but he has a complete different language and style of writing from the other books, which created much uncertainty about its validity in the Church.

The questions here are:  Who wrote the Books? And is or is not Saint John supposed to identify himself in his books? And where are his books that have his name on them?

Again, keep in mind that the NT was not even documented on paper until 150 to 300 years after Jesus (depending on what Christian you talk to). So the dating is way too long for us to be assuming books to belong to certain people. Let alone considering their nonsense (contents) as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

The Book of Revelation has prophecies in it of what Christians believe for our future today, even though it has nothing to do with our current world. It talks about Jesus soon (1800 to 2000 years ago) will return (Revelation 22:7). I don't know how soon is 2000 years to the Bible. All the people that this book was told to had died.

Would you honestly deep inside yourself call this the True Words of GOD Almighty, especially after knowing that very important early Christian resources thought "the book could not been written by the apostle of John"?

The Books of Paul:

Before we start on the analysis of Paul's Books, we must first know that Paul who's Books are believed to be inspired by GOD Almighty Himself NEVER actually met Jesus in person. Jesus had 12 disciples when he was on earth. Paul was not one of them!. Paul much later after the disappearance of Jesus came and claimed that Jesus came to him and ordered him to be his disciple. Paul is really taken on faith only and not on proofs.

The Book of Romans:

"The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1705)

Paul is also clear about his ownership of the Books of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. But why must we take every single word that Paul spoke especially during his conversations with others as Words of GOD Almighty?! Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39). Did GOD favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? Paul himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-30).

And since Paul never met Jesus in person, and only claimed that Jesus came to him then there is always the possibility of him being untruthful. Since Paul never performed any miracles to help us believe his claim of Prophethood.

The Book of Philippians:

"The early church was unanimous in its testimony that Philippians was written by the apostle Paul (see 1:1). Internally the letter reveals the stamp of genuineness. The many personal references of the author fit what we know of Paul from other NT books." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1803)

Again, it was assumed that this book was written by Paul himself. No one knows for sure whether it was Paul or somebody else. If we're going to assume that Books that look appealing to us as the True Word of GOD Almighty, then we are committing a great crime against GOD Almighty and His Holy Words. No where in this Book we see a statement saying that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself.

The Book of Colossians:

"That Colossians is a genuine letter Paul is not usually disputed. In the early church, all who speak on the subject of authorship ascribe it to Paul. In the 19th century, however, some thought that the heresy refuted in ch. 2 was second-century Gnosticism." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1813)

But again, who's to say that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself?

The Books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians:

"Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been questioned more often than that of 1 Thessalonians, in spite of the fact that it has more support from early Christian writers." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1829)

So basically we're not certain whether or not Paul wrote the Book. And even if Paul was the one who wrote it, we still don't know whether it was the True Words of GOD Almighty or not, because no where in the Book we see any indication that it was inspired by the Almighty GOD.

The Old Testament:

Please read: Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament?

The Book of Genesis:

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17. However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11)" (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)

The Book of Numbers:

"It is not necessary, however, to claim that Numbers came from Moses' hand complete and in final form. Portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history. For example, the protestation of the humility of Moses (12:3) would hardly be convincing if it came from his own mouth." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 183)

The book of Deuteronomy:

"The book itself testifies that, for the most part, Moses wrote it (1:5; 31:9,22,24), and other OT books agree (1Ki 2:3, 8:53; 2ki 14:6; 18:12)--though the preamble (1:1-5) may have been written by someone else, and the report of Moses' death (ch.34) was almost certainly written by someone else." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 240)

As we clearly see, there is ample evidence that proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that Moses was not the sole author of the book. He couldn't have possibly have written about his own death.

The book of Joshua:

"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)

The book of Judges:

"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain." ; "The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)

The book of Ruth:

"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)

The books of 1 and 2 Samuel:

"Many questions have arisen pertaining to the literary character, authorship and date of 1,2 Samuel." ; "Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368)

Again, unknown books with unknown authors in the Bible and are now considered GOD's Revelations. Do we consider man-made stories and narrations as GOD's Revelations?

The books of 1 and 2 Kings:

"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings" ; "Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)

The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles:

"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)

The book of Esther:

"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)

The book of Job:

"Although most of the book consists of the words of Job and his counselors, Job himself was not the author." ; "The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources...." (From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722)

It's obvious that like most of the Bible's book, the Book of Job had been lost.

The book of Proverbs:

"Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"

The book of Ecclesiastes:

"No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book, but several passages strongly suggest that King Solomon is the authors. On the other hand, the writer's title, his unique style of Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers may point to another person and a later period." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 988)

Was it or was it not Solomon who wrote this book? If you say it was Solomon, then how can you prove it? And by the way, was this book a revelation to Solomon, or just Solomon's own personal writings, if it were Solomon's book from the first place?

Did you know that the number of chapters in this book are more in the Roman Catholic Bibles? Please compare the number of chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes in the NIV Bible to the number of chapters in the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.

Let us look at this verse from this book: "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss." (From the New Jerusalem Bible, Ecclesiasticus 22:3), Since when does GOD give stupid generalizing statements for ALL the members of a certain group of His creation?

Obviously, one of those bibles has to be wrong. Or both?!

The book of Song of Songs:

"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)

Let alone the Pornography in this pornful book.

The book of Lamentations:

"Although Lamentations is anonymous and we cannot be certain who wrote it, ancient Jewish and Christian tradition ascribes it to Jeremiah." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1207) 

Conclusion:

The current Bible is not (in total) the True Word of GOD Almighty. It is full of doubts and man made doctrines. How can we believe in a doubtful book as the Perfect Book of GOD Almighty? Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran regarding those who try to corrupt His Holy Words: "Know they not Allah Knows what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)

So did you answer the questions presented at the beginning of this article?

1- Is all of the Bible GOD's Divine Revelations?
2- Did the Prophets of GOD really write the Bible of today?
3- Is the Bible perfect?
4- Did man indeed corrupt the Bible?
5- Is the Bible of today reliable?

If your answer is no to most of or all of the above questions except for #4, then your faith has serious problems!

Again, you be the Judge, and only you, responsible for the decision!!