HT: David Wood at www.answeringMuslims.com. Others are embedding this also, I have noticed. It seemed good to me also to spread the word here.
Since by God's Providence this seems to be "Islam week"; here is another post on Islam, an excellent presentation by a former Muslim.
A good example of communication with Muslims from within their own worldview.
"Istaqfr'allah" استغفر الله = "I seek the forgiveness of God"; Iranians use it to say, "God forbid!" or "May God forgive you!"
In the first videos, notice the difference between "lafz" لفظ (word) and "Ma'ani" معنی (meaning). We have the Arabic word "lafz" لفظ in Farsi also, which indicates the "word" or text (متن = matn) has not been changed. And we have the word "ma'ani" معنی also in Farsi which means "meaning". Some Christians and Jews changed the "meanings" of the text/word, by their wrong oral interpretations ("with their tongues" - Qur'an 3:78) but the text has not been changed or corrupted or lost.
He uses the exact same main verses that I would use to show that the Qur'an does not say that the text of the Bible was corrupted. (Surah Al Ma'ida 5:47; 5:68; Yunus 10:94; 10:64 - "There is not changing the words of Allah")
Here he quotes a lot of famous and early Muslims, to confirm this truth. Ibn Abbas, the cousin and one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, Imam Al Razi, Al Tabari (the historian of Islam), even Ibn Taymiyya. He says that the idea that the Bible was corrupt was started by Ibn Khazem (died in 1064 AD), which is way after the foundational period of Islam.
Posts
224 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 224 of 224How Sad :(
The mighty Sam Shamoun grovelling to his Christian friends to ban the Muslims when he can't take them on?!
Such weakness...
Perhaps you should oblige him and put him out of his misery...
And it seems you have 'no qualms' about mistranslating AGAIN...hmmm...'deceiver'...what was that in Arabic again...
"what do you expect..."
In fairness to them, I doubt any of them go out and raid caravans - nor do they likely have more than four wives.
Actually, virtually all the Muslims I've met (even the ones here) are considerably better behaved than their sources describe their prophet as being.
You got me there Turretin. Your arguments are simply irrefutable since many of these Muslims do show better behavior than their own prophet.
Sam,
On banning, etc. - I don't think that is necessary at this point, because I don't expect Muslims to act like Christians.
Muslims fight back naturally when we give them fuel for their fire. Raskolvikov may fight back against my comments also, below (in the next post), since I will also be saying that the Qur'an seems to admit that the Allah of Islam is "the very best deceiver" - Surah 3:54, 8:30; 10:22. (which is essentially what you are saying in your article on the same issue - I read it a while back - within the last 2-3 years. (?)
I would prefer to try to break through the communication barrier, and treat them as lost people who need the Lord, and who are created in the image of God, and we are to be patient and seek to "speak the truth in love". (Ephesians 4:15; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)
One of the greatest needs of our time in the post 9-11-01 world that we live in is for better communication between the Christians and Muslims - they - the Muslim world - are the ones who don't allow communication, debate, evangelism, freedom of thought, freedom of speech in their countries - Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. But we allow those freedoms for them in the west and the internet is one of the few places that the potential for proper communication to actually take place.
James may think Raskolnikov's comment rises to the level of banning, but I will leave that up to him. (at this point)
On Allah in the Qur'an being the very best deceiver, Surah 3:45 and several other times, it does say that in the Qur'an, and the word for deception, Makr - مکر - we have this in Farsi, and it is always in a negative context of trickery, deception, cunning scheming, etc.
This is a big contrast contrast with the God of the Bible, whom we are told, "cannot lie" - Titus 1:2; see also Hebrews 6:18; I John 1:5.
Here is some of what I wrote earlier on that, with some update editing.
This also gets us back closer to the subject of the post -
David Waltz, a former Roman Catholic, who I have discussed and debated informally with for several years in com boxes here and at his blog also; thinks it is easy to harmonize Surah 3:55 (that implies Jesus did die) with 4:157 (that clearly claims twice that Jesus did not die and that He was not crucified, and adds "for sure" یقین - (Yaqin) a strong term - we also have this in Farsi and it is used in the Bible translations in Farsi for passages that deal with confidence and assurance.
What does the verse before 3:55, namely 3:54 mean, in context? The context of 3:54 and the deception of Allah to make the Jews think they crucified Jesus, but they really didn't, makes more sense with the traditional and orthodox Sunni and Shiite interpretation.
Surah 3:52 ff -
(52) When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah´s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
[This actually shows that the Qur'an holds the disciples of Jesus in high esteem, and considers them full of integrity and servants of God, and so it is wrong for Muslims to accuse Matthew, Peter, John, James, and Paul of changing the original Injeel.]
(53) "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
(54) And (the unbelievers) schemed and deceived, and Allah too schemed/deceived/tricked, and the best of deceivers/tricksters is Allah.
[
الله خیر المکارین
مکارین from مکر = deception, trickery, ruse, scheme
خدا بهترین مکر کننده است.
(Farsi - "God is the very best deceiver/schemer/trickster."
مکر (Makr) is trickery, deception, ruse, cunning, trickery and is always used in a negative way. It is same word used in I Peter 2:22 of the Farsi translations that describes Jesus as having NO Deception or guile or trickery in his character and speach. Opposite of the character of Allah of Islam.]
(55) Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself [literally, "cause you to die] and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Oops - Surah 3:55 should have been this; I put the brackets in the wrong place.
(55) Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee
[literally, "cause you to die]
raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
BTW Ken, since Williams is so keen on attacking the Apostle Paul let me quote what some of Islam's greatest scholars said about this blessed Apostle:
“Yazid b. Abu Habib al-Misrl told me that he found a document in which was a memorandum (T. the names) of those the apostle sent to the countries and kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs and what he said to his companions when he sent them. I sent it to Muhammad b. Shihab al-Zuhri (T. with a trusty countryman of his) and he recognized it. It contained the statement that the apostle went out to his companions and said: ‘God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. Do not hang back from me as the disciples hung back from Jesus son of Mary. They asked how they hung back and he said, ‘He called them to a task similar to that which I have called you. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.' (T. Jesus said, ‘This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.’
“Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (PAUL BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas" (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 653)
“Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed.” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Ancient Kingdoms, translated by Moshe Perlmann [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1987], Volume IV, p. 123; bold emphasis ours)
The translator explains al-Tabari’s statement that Paul was not an apostle:
317. In Islamic terms the messengers or apostles pave the new path. Their work is continued by the tabi'un, the followers, members of the next generations, who lead the Faithful. (Ibid.)
More in the next post.
Al-Tabari lists Paul as one of those martyred for the faith:
“Abu Ja'far says: They assert that after Tiberius, Palestine and other parts of Syria were ruled by Gaius, son of Tiberius, for four years. He was succeeded by another son, Claudius, for fourteen years, following which Nero ruled for fourteen years. He slew Peter and crucified Paul head down. For four months Botlaius [Vittelius] ruled thereafter. Then Vespasian, father of Titus whom he sent to Jerusalem, ruled for ten years. Three years after his rise to power, forty years after the ascension of Jesus, Vespasian sent Titus to Jerusalem. Titus destroyed it and slew numerous Israelites in his wrath over the fate of Christ…” (Ibid., p. 126)
Even though I quoted these in rebuttals Williams chose to ignore them or pretend they don't exist. So make sure to remind him of his own sources which refute his slander against this blessed man of God.
"Muslims fight back naturally when we give them fuel for their fire."
Unbelievers in general fight back naturally when confronted with the truth. That doesn't justify the churlish behavior of the Muslims in this comment box.
As Sam pointed out, early on: "You see Ken what happens when these Muslim can't refute you? They start lying and slandering your character and whine when you give them a taste of their own medicine!"
Go back and review. What serious interaction was offered in this comment box from the Muslim side? A link to a few articles that have already been refuted?
If you tolerate their bad behavior, it will continue. That's just the nature of the Internet.
Here is a reference to Paul from Ibn Kathir:
means, ‘We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger.’ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu’ayb Al-Jaba’i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch ...
meaning, ‘from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-‘Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di‘amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, abridged under a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition, September 2000], p. 179: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491)
Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul. This source therefore affirms that the apostle Paul was one of the Messengers sent by God!
To read more on this point check out the following article:
The Apostles of Christ: Messengers of God or Mere Disciples? (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christs_apostles.htm)
"Muslims fight back naturally when we give them fuel for their fire."
Unbelievers in general fight back naturally when confronted with the truth. That doesn't justify the churlish behavior of the Muslims in this comment box.
You are correct - but I still do not expect them to act like Christians; and most of them, in my experience resort to anger and cursing and trickery, as did Rambo John, and Rehan Ullah at Paul Williams site; as did the Muslims who cursed nasty language at Nabil Qureshi in Detroit.
Islam itself, in its doctrines and behaviors and sources, because it does justify anger and fighting against its enemies, feels justified in that; and many Muslims justify their own behavior as legitimate against what they perceive as enemies against Islam.
But, if and when we do the same thing, they turn the tables as say, "Jesus says you can't do that - you are commanded to love your enemy"; but we admit that we are not commanded to love our enemies, therefore we are justified." I have seen this kind of behavior for 27 years dealing with Muslims.
My position is to let them expose their own sinfuless, anger, cursing, revengeful spirit and let readers then see them exposed; but let us behave in a holy and godly manner and don't respond with insults or ad hominem.
Turretinfan wrote:
As Sam pointed out, early on: "You see Ken what happens when these Muslim can't refute you? They start lying and slandering your character and whine when you give them a taste of their own medicine!"
Go back and review. What serious interaction was offered in this comment box from the Muslim side? A link to a few articles that have already been refuted?
If you tolerate their bad behavior, it will continue. That's just the nature of the Internet.
That is true; but I think I dealt with Williams and Raskolnikov in a better method than just cutting them off and refusing to answer any of their questions.
In fact, Williams has now shut down most of his comments from his blog and has gotten rid of side bar features that allow one to quickly link to recent comments, etc.
I think that that indicates that we are able to open and honestly handle interaction, and they are not.
I also think it means that I don't think Williams can deal with my answers, and he has nothing against me to promote to his Muslim brothers as any evidence of bad behavior or unfair treatment in discussion, etc. All he can do is say I am a backwards fundamentalist and not very scholarly. That is ok with me for now; I don't have time to read all of James D. G. Dunn; but maybe some good Evangelical scholar like D. A. Carson or Dan Wallace or has analyzed him.
I still say that Proverbs 15:1 and 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Ephesians 4:15 are to be applied for a long time before one decide's to shut down conversation.
Because of the centuries of bad relations and how typical Muslim's interpret our theology through the lens of the Crusades, colonialism, conservative politics, and racism (the same way that some have childishly played the race card in the Elephant Room discussion.); we have to see and understand that, and be willing to persevere through it and strive for breaking through by the power of love and the gospel and by praying that God will work in hearts. Just because God is sovereign and will ultimately decide what will use to win some, is no reason to give up too soon.
Jesus' spirit of not fighting back (I Peter 2:21-25; Gospels; and His humility in riding into the Jerusalem on a donkey (and not a horse with a sword like Muhammad) - many Muslims have told that is one of the most significant things that won them over - along with a true Christian who was willing to be patient with them and not fight back against them when they were angry and unjust toward me.
God can use pure Scripture and argumentation also; but most of the time, Muslims have come to the truth of the gospel through someone suffering unjustly in the name of Christ - it is more powerful than what they have - all they have is a human book that is not inspired and the power of force and politics and unjust war throughout the centuries.
In contrast, we don't fight with fleshly weapons (Ephesians 6:10-20; 2 Cor. 10:3-5) - We have the truth of the Bible, the gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Let them be shown for their sinfulness.
We can do better, since we have the power of the Holy Spirit living within us; and our purpose is not just to win an argument, but to glorify God in all things, including how we do apologetics and argumentation.
I thank you Turretinfan, for giving me the stimulus and opportunity to express that.
We are called to suffer for righteousness sake -
Matthew 5:9-12
I Peter 2:21
2 Timothy 3:12
But I agree that Paul Williams was unjust and unfair to Sam.
And all of this is not to say that I would never delete any comments or eventually " wipe the dust off my feet" and discontinue conversation. I just have not found that point yet here in this particular instance.
There is a time for that - for banning and deleting. I don't see it yet here.
The Pyromaniacs team does a good job of that. It takes lots of experience and discernment and time to do it right.
Brother Ken, the authors you need which soundly refute Dunn's claims and which prove that the earliest Christology was the highest imaginable Christology, meaning that the earliest Gospel writings and Christians who followed Christ proclaimed that Jesus is God and worshiped him as such, are Richard M. Bauckham and Larry W. Hurtado. These are men which even liberal scholars respect and take seriously.
The books you must get and read are Bauckham's "Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity" (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Israel-Testaments-Christology/dp/0802845592), and Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" (http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Jesus-Christ-Devotion-Christianity/dp/0802831672/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327943189&sr=1-4) And if you have some extra money you should also invest in Hurtado's other works titled, "One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism" (http://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-Christian-Monotheism/dp/0567089878/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327943189&sr=1-8), and "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus" (http://www.amazon.com/How-Earth-Did-Jesus-Become/dp/0802828612/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327943189&sr=1-1). The latter one is a more condensed version of his larger work which is more for the lay person than anything.
But if you can only get one book from Hurtado make sure it is his "Lord Jesus" one.
I also recommend checking out his blog since it has some reviews of Dunn's works: http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/.
Lord bless you bro.
Sam,
Thank you very much for the links to Richard Baucham and Larry Hurtaldo - I really appreciate that greatly.
Baucham is very good; but even he is used and twisted by Muslims in some areas.
I have heard of Hurtaldo and read a little bit; but I now you have motivated me to look into his material much more.
Thanks again!
May the Lord give you strength and grace and perseverance also.
Hurtado
Ken, I have to disagree with you regarding Bauckham since he is a nightmare for Islam and Muslims.
Here is my reply to Zawadi's misuse of Bauckham which ended up being a nightmare for him:
The Deity of Christ in light of His Enthronement [Part 1] (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/jesus_throne1.html)
The Deity of Christ in light of His Enthronement [Part 2] (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/jesus_throne2.html)
The Deity of Christ in light of His Enthronement [Part 3] (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/jesus_throne3.html)
Muhammad on the Throne - More on Islam's Other God (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/muhammad_throne.html)
Good; I will be looking at those articles of yours with quotes from Bauckham - thanks.
I see that Paul Williams cite has the comments enabled again and side bars are back; so perhaps that was just a temporary word-press/blogger issue for a while that he had no control over.
Unfortunately I've found this post to late. Now apart from all the documented rude behavior engaged in by the Muslims, I must say I enjoyed "Raskolnikov" supposed response to some valid questions raised by Sam. And by "enjoyed" I mean laughed at.
His response consisted of "evil doers" cannot be women, children and virgins, funny that though... I guess Women and Children and Virgins can't be evil doers according to Islam. Nope, women, children and virgins cannot be mushrikoon, nor can they break God's law (which is a common interpretation of evil doers)....
.........
except ......that they can.
And "evil doers" is an INCLUSIVE CATEGORY of all the people (races, ages, genders) participating in the evil behavior were destroyed.
What about his response to "it doesn't say therefore we assume he saved the innocent".
Well he might want to show where his prophet taught that, or a companion or teacher of the Quran appointed by his prophet said that. Maybe even one of those famous quraa commentators. We look forward to the day when you stop eisegeting your scriptures and engage in what "Williams" calls "scholarship". Although I've never seen Williams or "Raskolnikov" actually engage in scholarship in any forum (only ad nausem ad hom) it would be great to see them start.
By the way I was curious to ask Ken something.
Ken are you the same "Ken" that appears on the dividing line?
I think I heard one episode this year and the assistant was called "Ken" so I'm wondering if this is the same Ken and you own this blog? That's what I gathered from reading the comment section anyway.
If you are the same Ken. My next question is does the Dividing Line take calls from Atheists? And what kind of topics would Dr White and yourself be interested in talking about with an Atheist?
I'm 99% sure that this Ken is not on the Dividing Line.
I'm not associated with Dr White, but I am a very longtime listener and Dr White fanboy. The DL does take calls from atheists (when he's taking calls, which is not every single DL). And Dr White has done debates with atheists before, so he'd be interested in numerous topics. Not eschatology so much. Biblical reliability, textual criticism à la Ehrman, mythological derivation à la Bob Price (and badly copied by Dan Barker), various types of arguments for God's existence, that kind of stuff.
Peace,
Rhology
Derek,
I just noticed your comments from March 12-13 today on March 21. (Sorry I did not notice closer to the time you posted.)
No, I am not one of the men who work for, or speak on the Dividing Line program - Dr. James White is the speaker and Rich Pierce and one other gentleman - Barry - are those that work and minister on the DL program.
I have only called into the Dividing Line one time, and that was several years ago. I am sure there are other "Ken"s out there, who may have called in, so I don't really know who you are talking about.
Dr. White does take calls from atheists, as Rhology has pointed out. You may want to get Dr. White's debates that he has done with Atheists before. (vs. Dan Barker, David Silverman, Bryan Lynch) He has also debated agnostics like Bart Ehrman and liberal scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg and Robert Price (I cannot remember if Price considers himself an atheist or just agnostic) liberals like John Shelby Spong. (Look at the aomin book store and also search under these names and you will probably get some blog articles also dealing with these subjects.
You can also listen to the archived DL programs 24-7 - see under the Web-cast tab.
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/index.php?cPath=70
Above is the link to 8 different debates/interactions with Atheists that Dr. White has had.
by the way, Derek, I do listen to the DL regularly, every chance I get, and when I miss one, I usually eventually listen by archive. (like Rhology, I am a fan of that show, and it is a great encouragement to the faith of Christianity and to my own faith in Christ. )
Post a Comment