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:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=John%20Lennox

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: http://johnlennox.org/

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

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ten.html

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

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/limitations_of_science/

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJMp6p3tLj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZoMnz9JgGI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o57VUdQoPr4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo&feature=related

Of particular interest is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU&annotation_id=annotation_817251&feature=iv

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).

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.

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)

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 hoganelijahhagbard@yahoo.co.uk

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?

Did the Qur'an Suffer Textual Corruption?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y40X6ykSQlE&feature=player_embedded

I am not making myself an expert on the field of Qur'anic textual criticism, yet I think this issue demands our consideration.

This youtube video reveals that Qur'anic experts in textual criticism assume based upon early Qur'anic manuscripts and the earliest Qur'anic manuscript in existence that the Qur'anic text was manipulated and formulated from an earlier version to the standard version we possess today. They estimate that this corruption which preceeds other later Qur'anic manuscripts took place within the fifty earliest years of Islam. When considering the Hadiths and Sira and the vast corruption and fabrication of material, this is not all surprising.

It seems that the matter of Qur'anic textual criticism is a future field of study that will greatly challenge the traditional claim of Islam that the Qur'an has suffered zero corruption.

Let me in addition refer the reader to this particular debate which took place in London this summer between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Quershi:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/bassam-zawadi-vs-nabeel-qureshi-has.html

Bassam was well prepared for this debate, however, the very matter which Nabeel wished to pin point was firmly established, namely that the early Qur'an's contain variants and to this Bassam agreed, yet he dared to refer to these as divine variants. I have to say that such a reply to Nabeel's argument does not impress me at all, it goes against both logic and history. Bassam seemed here to point out a reply later stressed by Muslims to avoid the difficulties. In fact even if the Qur'an originally existed in multiple forms (which is logical but hardly is connected to this matter raised by German scholars) there is no clear evidence that these forms constitute the variants and textual inconsistencies which have been detected with early Qur'anic manuscripts and from the early historical sources.

Bassam and the Muslims present sought to argue that these variants were parts of revelations revealed in different forms to Arabic tribes of different dialects and that each form has been perfectly preserved wherever possible.

There are nevertheless a number of refuting points to this argument.

Firstly, Nabeel pointed out effectively that there forty different views among Muslims concerning these variants, and certainly no evidence that these were merely dialectical variants. In fact why would Allah commit such a foolish error in the first place, an error, which later almost lead to civil war. And if it was Allah's will to reveal the Qur'an in seven forms, based upon what revelatory authority did Uthman and later Islamic leaders discredit these forms and burn them?

It also came across rather clearly that the best reciters of Muhammad transmitted Qur'ans in dialects that later were burned; that is if the matter relates to dialects only. However, early Islam gives no real evidence that this was only a matter of dialects, and the reaction toward the Islamic rulers who inagurated this Qur'anic reform and revision of the text seem to reveal an attempt to cover up a real problem, namely that the early Qur'an was not preserved, which led to the corruption and later stratums of periods in which Qur'ans were burned; hence a development in textually formulating the Qur'anic text within the first fifty years of Islam.

Furthermore, the German scholars have effectively established that under the printed text they have discovered a text that has been erased, which reveals a number of stages in which the text has been polished and reformulated, hence the variants are not resulted from divine logic in providing a number of texts for various dialectics but the result of an early corruption of the text. This refutes the claim of the Muslims that the existing variants reveal dialectic form, rather the variants reveal a fluid transmission and a text that underwent a lengthy development.

We need also to reject the claim of Muslims that the variants reveal seven variant forms, which despite their variants remain in each their own preserved form. In fact the scrutiny of the early manuscripts reveal that the variants result from rewriting and rearranging the text, which in the typical Muslim mindset is corruption.

While I am not a keen favorit of source criticism and the typical theoretical methods behind it, this certainly rekindles my desire to consider the works of Chrone and a number of scholars who propose that the present Qur'an was fabricated under a Syriac influence and that much of the transmitted transmission related to the earlist history of Islam and the biography of Muhammad is early fabrication and corruption of reality.

Yahya Snow and the Prophet in John 1: 19-21 an Example of the Inconsistency of Islamic Apologetics

An interesting debate that has taken up in recent weeks concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-21 has been heavily stirred up by a certain Muslim named Yahya Snow. Yahya much like most of his muslim buddies would attempt to argue that this particular prophet is no one else but prophet Muhammad.

In this post I will not address the actual details of the debate; my brothers, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Semper Paratus have already effectively refuted Yahya Snow and smashed his arguments to pieces:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/reply-to-yahya-snows-comments-on-john_26.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/sam-shamoun-vs-yahya-snow-on.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/reply-to-yahya-snows-comments-on-john.html

However, I want to address another particular problem with Yahya Snow's methodology, which is typical of muslim apologetics as a whole, and which I have already posted on www.answering-muslim.com:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=8397958699663275226

The problem with the Muslim approach here, is that in Muslim apologetics, the Gospels reveal a progress in corruption: Mark being the earliest Gospel, being the least corrupted and hence the most islamic Gospel. Followed by Matthew and Luke, which are slightly more corrupted and embellished (such as the inclusion of the virgin birth, which unfortunately for the muslim is found in the Qur'an) and finally joined by John's Gospel which is the ultimate corruption (according to Muslims and other critics) and which according to Muslims has included a number of trinitarian details, teachings contradictory of the Qur'an, narratives and ideas; but unfortunately also references that according to muslims may support the Qur'anic position, such as the reference to the three: Christ, Elijah and the prophet, including the 'paraclete' in John 14: 16-17, which muslims mistake for Muhammad the prophet of Islam.

The question I always ask is, why is the Paraclete not found in Mark's Gospel? And why is the reference to the prophet in John 1: 17-21 not found in Mark's Gospel.

Muslims cannot simply state that parts of John's Gospel are parts of the Injeel along with parts of Mark's Gospel! Firstly because many of these passages such as John 1 related to the prophet is narrative, in that case the original Injeel was not a book from heaven but a human narrative.

Furthermore, based upon the progressive-corruption argument held by muslims, muslims can only appeal to Mark's Gospel, and therefore prove themselves inconsistent if they move even onto Matthew or Luke.

Either they cannot hold to the view of progressive corruption, and the Muslim can then pull verses out of context whereever he desires from the four Gospels (which in itself is embarrasing) and which they do, but which then implies that he (the muslim if he is consistent) needs to consider the Christological and Trinitarian sayings of Jesus in John's Gospel also.

Or the Muslim can hold to progressive-corruption, but then the prophet in John 1: 17-21 is completely futile for their argument, and then the Qur'an refers to a corrupted passage when claiming that Muhammad was predicted in the Gospel, which implies that the Paraclete in John 14 is not an argument the muslim can appeal to provide proof for a prediction of Muhammad in the Gospel.

So, go ahead muslim, which view do you hold to? Be consistent. However, it is obvious that whatever view the Muslim adheres he will yet again shoot himself in the foot.