Wednesday, 23 December 2009

John Lennox refuting the atheist

I want to make the reader aware of John Lennox, an excellent Christian apologist and debater and author of several books, such as God's Undertaker among others, see:

Lennox recently debated the radical evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins and did a fairly good job in representing the Christian faith and view.

Lennox blog can be seen here:

Personally I find the atheist position extremely weak, dishonest and selective.

I can't help referring to Richard Carrier's methodology that only non-theist scientists can be considered as reliable, since they are non-theists, a claim which proves utterly devestating for the integrity of atheist reasoning; see

Here I guess theists show much more virtue than the majority of radical atheist, a point which Lennox himself brings up:

Here is also a list from youtube on the famous particular blunder of Richard Dawkins to respond to a simple question related to DNA, which is foundational for his evolutionary view and theory:

Of particular interest is this one:

I did read the book in which Richard Dawkins refers to this particular incident prior to our privilege of Youtube; great actually to watch the interview and the reaction of our atheist friends. You will find it interesting from these youtube videos that it is becoming more and more of an atheist claim that theists fabricate or corrupt interview records, which is a desparate claim indeed. Quite similar to the reaction we had to Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to theism or deism.

Well it seems that Dawkins confirms that the recording was not tampered with. Hence he was stuck when a fundamental question and issue was raised and funny Dawkins has failed to adequately address this issue with anything that impresses a mind that actually conforms to actual reason.

In any case the evolution theory is hardly an adequate refutation of either the Bible (according to some) or God (and I personally hold to the creationist view).

Monday, 14 December 2009

Refuting the Muslim Misuse of Jeremiah 8: 8 Concering the Corruption of the Torah

In a fairly desprate attempt to prove Bible corruption modern muslims have even resorted to the Biblical text for supporting indication. The most frequent passage being quoted by these Islamic missionaries is Jeremiah 8: 8 which reads:

How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

Basically, the people of Jerusalem cannot claim to possess the Law since the scribes have falsefied it, or so the muslim argument runs, hence the Torah in our possession today is corruption.

This argument was originally utilized by a radical critical scholar named Albertz Rainer in his book ‘A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy’.

Rainer along with a number of radical critics utilized this passage in Jeremiah to support a yet another speculative attempt to undermine scripture namely the popular theory of an early religious conspiracy to turn Judea from its polytheistic state towards monotheism and back to the prophetic, priestly and political function of Moses (Rainer, pp. 203-207).

That Josiah’s reform indeed was a return to the original movement of Yahweh and the Law of Moses if accurate, but it is virtually impossible to prove that Josiah and his contemporaries forged the Deuteronomy document and neither Rainer nor any of his associates achieves this.

The book is an enjoyable reading yet apart from its academic outfit as fictionous as the Davinci Code itself.

The problem with the argument of Rainer is as Weinfeld points out that the particular word ‘sheqer’ in Jeremiah 8: 8 has multiple meanings such as untruth, shame, lie or in vain, and is far more accurately translated ‘writing in vain’ in this context. In fact the same word is found in 1 Samuel 25: 21, where David uses the same wording, which is often translated: ‘it’s been useless’

In that case the scribes of Jerusalem in Jermiah’s time are not corrupting the Law of Moses, but what they write is useless because they fail to abide by it.

Furthermore, that ‘writing in vain’ is an accurate translation of ‘sheqer’ in this passage is also supported by the context itself. In Jeremiah 26: 4-6 we are told that the Law still exists and should be followed:

"Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, which I have set before you, and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened) then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.’"( Jeremiah 26:4-6)

Hence if the Mosaic Law still exists and should be followed, how can it be corrupted?

Interestingly a few decades later Daniel the prophet reads the book of Jeremiah:

"In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom - in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the LORD and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes." (Daniel 9:1-3)

And confirms in the same book that the Law of Moses is still intact:

"Therefore the curses and sworn judgments WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." Daniel 9:11b-13

This only supports that the meaning of Jeremiah 8: 8 is not that of corrupting the text but that of copying the Law in vain since the people of Jerusalem failed to abide by it anyway.

Furthermore, even if Jeremiah attests to a group of scribes falsifying the Law of Moses, it does not support the view that the Law of Moses was universally corrupted. Scribes were not only residing in Jerusalem and both Jeremiah himself and Daniel confirm that the Law remained intact and existed as such in Jeremiah’s time and in the era of Daniel.

Furthermore, if the argument of Rainer is used by a Muslim, how does the Muslim explain the Qur’anic description of the Torah in Muhammad’s time and era:

"But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which IS the command of God." (Sura 5: 46)

"But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say: `why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?' Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They say: `Two kinds of magic (the Torah and the Quran) each helping the other!' And they say: `Verily! In both we are disbelievers.' Say (to them, O Muhammad): `Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these TWO (the Torah and the Quran), that I may follow it, if you are truthful.'" (Sura 28: 48-49)

"The Jews say, `The Christians are not (founded) upon anything.' And the Christians say, `The Jews are not (founded) upon anything.' And yet THEY READ THE BOOK." (Sura 2: 113)

Obviously Rainer’s view and the view of the modern Muslims does not cohere with the teachings proposed by the author of the Qur’an.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Misquoting Jesus

As I am critically writing a review of Barth Ehrman's Misqouting Jesus, I am amazed at the publicity this book has received as becoming a main academic source of contribution to the effort of the critic to debunk the historical reliability behind the NT text. Personally I think this is a brilliant book of this field of study, even though simple and merely a work of popular literature. My main disappointment is that Ehrman simply reiterates what he has already covered in other books such as 'Orthodox corruption' and 'Lost Christianity'. Yet despite being an excellent source of informaton, it amounts to nothing more than I already have covered at Bible college.

The book has nevertheless been utilized by muslims to promote their case against the Bible. Personally, I don't think New Testament Textual criticism supports this muslim myth, neither does the book of Ehrman.

I wonder therefore if my Muslim friends could elaborate on how the textual criticism Ehrman proposes defends the modern islamic view (not Quranic view) that the Gospels have been corrupted, to the extent the modern muslim individual promotes it.

(note: the modern muslim who adheres to the view of Bible corruption is not obedient to the teachings of the Qur'an which describes the Injeel intact; in fact such a muslim is according to the Qur'an not a muslim but a individual who has driven far away from the true path)

Sunday, 6 December 2009

My Email Address

I have just discovered that the email address attached to this blog does not work (at least if you email me from my profile). I anyone has tried to contact me within the last four weeks by the 'email' under profile, then I have not received your post.

I am trying to find out why emails do not reach me from this blog. In the mean time if you wanna get in touch with me I have included my email address under the 'about me' on the front page of this blog.

My email address is

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Additional Questions for Yahya Snow: The prophet in John 1: 19-28

Concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-28

1) Do you believe this passage is authentic?

2) If it is authentic do you believe it was a part of the original Injeel?

3) If you believe that John's Gospel is simply a corruption but you are merely making a point from what you believe to be corrupted or fabricated material, are you not then wasting your time?

4) If you believe some words or phrases in the passage are authentic or even revelatory how do you differentiate between these and the fabricated part?

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.