Friday, January 06, 2012

Some Interaction with some Muslims online

See the back and forth discussion in the comboxes:
1. On the Debate on the Incarnation between James White and Abdullah Kunde:
2. Debate between a Muslim (Paul Bilal Williams) and a Christian (Steve Latham) on Salvation. See also part 1 to get the full impact of the debate. Part 2 below, with discussion in the com boxes. Sam Shamoun has responded to some of Paul Williams points here. There is more to come, and I am hoping to also have some more response to Paul W. also; that I hope to write in a separate article.
3. On the Claim that the Islamic wars against the Byzantines (and Persians, though the article focuses on the Byzantine Empire) from around 632 AD onward was just and right and a kind of “war against terror”.
4. On the Khalifah (office of succession to Muhammad, that was abolished in 1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey) and Muslims desire to restore the Khalifah:
5. An interesting Calligraphy designed to point to the Oneness of Allah (in Arabic, "The One" is "Al-Wahid" = واحد - الواحد without the definite article in Arabic. We have this word in Farsi without the definite article, and use it for "God is one".) Using the Arabic letter “waw” = و , it is interesting that it turned out to be made up of three of these Arabic letters designed in a circle, which looks like a rounded off, circular triangle. The word "oneness" - Towhid, توحید ، comes from واحد ، Wahed.

Addendum:
Debate: The Bible is the Word of God: Rhology vs. Saaib Ahmad
Rhology's Opening Statement:
Saaib Ahmad's Opening Statement:

4 comments:

Rhology said...

Could you add a link to my debate?

Ken said...

Done. Sorry I did not notice your request sooner.

Paul said...

"I am hoping to also have some more response to Paul W. also; that I hope to write in a separate article."

I look forward to it. I hope you adopt a more critical (ie scholarly) methodology in your interpretation of the Bible.

Paul

Ken said...

Hi Paul,
I just noticed your comment here today on Jan. 24.

I am working on that article; but no guarantee that I have to spend money and time on E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, etc. and their books - that would be a major project, that I don't' have time for; and I don't have the resources for.

That is not to say that someone should not digest what they are saying and evaluate it. I am hoping a scholar like a D. A. Carson or Kostenburger or one of the good scholars mentioned below will one day provide a thorough answer to the way you use Dunn and Sanders.

What I would be interested in is a conservative critique of them on the points that you bring out. Sanders has already been answered on "The New Perspective on Paul", as has N. T. Wright, but you seem to be emphasizing something else, it seems to me.

Ehrman has been adequately answered and rebuked by Dan Wallace, James White, Ben Witherington, and Darrel Bock and others.