 And based on the fact that the New Testament has tremendous internal consistency, is archaeologically verifiable, is supported by an amazing number of Greek manuscripts, I am convinced that the New Testament is historically reliable, but so is the Quran. The Quran is historically reliable. There really was a dude named Muhammad who lived from about 570 to 632. And historically, that's a fact. Did he ascend to heaven and was the moon split in two? I don't have the faintest idea, I don't think so. And yet, and yet, you're talking about how the Quran is historically accurate and the Bible is historically accurate. And because you think that the Bible is historically accurate, that's good enough to justify a resurrection. But when it comes to the Quran, you don't seem to know whether or not it's enough to justify the moon splitting into two or Muhammad ascending to heaven. Why is that?