یہودیت،عیسائیت اور اسلام میں گناہ، کفارہ اور نجات کا تصور
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a research based analytical and comparative study of the Concept of Sin, Atonement and Salvation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Allah Almighty descended messengers in every region and among every nation with divine laws to regulate their lives according to His will. These divine laws were given with freedom of choice as worldly life is a test and trial for human beings. According to divine scriptures every individual is answerable to Allah regarding his worldly life and deeds. Followers of all divine religions believe in virtue and sin, reward and punishment, accountability, paradise as the destination of good doers and hell as the last destination of wrong doers. On the concept of Sin, Atonement and salvation a rich literature is available in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, a valuable analytical and comparative study is still missing on the concept of sin, atonement and salvation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This article traces the similarities and differences of concept of sin, atonement and salvation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In this connection, an analytical and comparative study has been conducted in the light of the Old Testament, New Testament, the Holy Quran and Hadith. Hence, the similarities and differences of the concepts of sin, atonement and salvation have been traced out in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".