The Bible Believing Christian's Dilemma: A Response to Anthony Rogers of Answering Muslims

I recall reading a response by Anthony on the problem modern-day Christians face with regards to their confidence in the New Testament. It's clear one of the reasons why Christians of today cannot be confident in the NT is due to the point highlighted below.

It's been a while since I read Anthony's response. However, Anthony's response, IIRC, in a nutshell was him arguing that no more earlier manuscripts will be found - he even cited Ehrman's opinion on the unlikelihood of new NT MSS being found that would result in edits in the NT of today.

The Christians prior to the 19th century may well have been thinking the same thing and all of a sudden, BOOM!!! The Codex Sinaticus was found.

Another point on this is, are these folk confident there's no more new ones to be found because they have found them all OR rather that they believe that many were lost (thus meaning they have no certainty in what the autographs of each book in the NT said).

No matter how the fundamentalist Christian spins it, there are a problems for the Bible-believing Christian.

Here's the old post we are discussing:


Have you ever stopped to think about all those Christians prior to the 19th century discovery of Codex Sinaiticus who used to believe the last 12 verses of Mark were inspired by God and part of the Bible (they had similar beliefs about John 7:53-8:11 and that version of Luke 23:34). NOW you and other modern day Christians will claim those Christians of the past believed in forgeries/errors.

You have no guaranty that this will not happen to you in your life time (i.e. a new MSS discovery is made and a passage is denounced as an unauthorised addition).

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. 

Unitarians Have a Better Case Than Trinitarians

Jesus was not a Trinitarian

James White and His Followers Should Think Deeper

What Every Christian Should Know About The Gospel Of John

Title "Son of God" does not mean Divinity

Reza Aslan: Illiteracy rates at time of Jesus p

Reza Aslan on Prophecies of the Messiah

What does the Aramaic word name for Jesus tell us?

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

dave hunt, bruce Metzger, textual critics, evangelical scholars, anjem choudary, abn, sam shamoun, radical moderate, nabeel Qureshi,

Christians Who Reject Parts of the Bible - Are Not Christians According to Augustine

You know, here, I can understand where Christians are coming from. It's about consistency. If somebody says they are a Muslim then they must believe in the whole religion, not select bits to believe and bits to reject according to what they desire.

Interestingly enough, despite being swamped by Christian liberals, traditional Christianity followed the same route in taking a religion as a whole. Augustine likens the liberals who reject parts of the 'Gospel' as people who disbelieve in the 'Gospel'.

Christian apologist, Anthony Rogers comments:

I recently witnessed a man tell another person to reject any part of the Bible he doesn't like instead of denying God or the gospel. This person gushed all over him and told him what a nice person he was for telling him this. Unsurprisingly, and lamentably, this was very flattering to his false sense of autonomy. However, if you accept what you like and reject whatever you don't like in God's Word, you have, in principle, already, and by that very act, rejected God as God and have made yourself out to be god instead. As Augustine said: "You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel." (_Contra Faustum_, XVII, 3) [From Anthony Rogers' FB]

This all ties in with Muslim frustrations in discussions with Christians. Once a Bible passage is cited, the Christian may not seem to care thus making it difficult to have a discussion and come to some common terms with these liberal Christians. Here are a couple of comments which touch on such frustrations:

Mohammad Mohammadi Kurdi 6 days ago
To be honest brother the Christians will not give a flying jam sandwich if we quote from the bible, because majority of Christian don't even care any more. What is truth and what is wrong. So how can we ague with them if they do not know basic manners to form a proper debate. 


Mikhail Gordon 6 days ago
+Mohammad Mohammadi Kurdi I understand Aki... it's quite a quagmire we are in as far as debating based on source materials and coming to common terms with them... but it's good to have some knowledge of their book for refutation... and Allahu alam... if even one can see the beauty of Islam through this kind of dialog... then Alhamdulallah

William Lane Craig Doubts Resurrection Story is Historical ('The Resurrection of the Saints') Matthew 27

Rebuking Rev. Steven Martins of Evangelium & Apologia Ministries - 'Western Values'

Is the Gospel of John Reliable?

The Sicarii

More about the Paraclete

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Anthony Rogers with another long article - a response by Calling Christians

After my article here, Anthony decided to respond in an article copiously filled to the brim with nonsensical ad hominem and straw man attacks. He’s upset, very upset after a bust up we had along with Br. Yahya Snow via e-mail, I didn’t realise my words had stung him that badly that it drove him to such madness. I’ll be skipping the filibustering and get straight to his counter arguments

Read more:
http://callingchristians.com/2014/03/04/a-missionarys-response-to-john-858/

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Debate Review: Is the Angel of the Lord God? (AnsweringMuslims and Ijaz Ahmed Debate)

The debate can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y90iu4fw0aU

AnsweringMuslims (Anthony Rogers) just runs with a bunch of semantics. One of which being that the definite article of 'the' in 'the angel of the Lord' means the angel is more than an angel. That does not make sense.

Anthony Rogers fails to mention that this is his personal belief and that many, many Christians do not believe the angel of the Lord was God. Rogers speaks as though he is representing Christianity when he is only representing his own personal beliefs. Anthony Rogers offered no proof at all. In a dull presentation he just presented semantics whilst rattling off his script.

One can only imagine how confused new Christians will be after coming across Anthony Rogers who is asking Christians to not only believe in the trinity idea, the man-god idea but now an angel-god idea.

Ijaz Ahmed (Calling Christians) was shocked at Anthony's opening presentation - he clearly was unimpressed. Ijaz Ahmed touched on a history of paganism within and around Christian communities and went for the jugular in singling out this belief of Anthony's to be pagan (worshipping the creation of God). He points out that Anthony's claims come with a belief of a hierarchy within Anthony's trinity which is problematic for Anthony's pre-existing Trinitarian beliefs. Ijaz, does something that Rogers did not, that's to say he introduces the idea that this is a later belief that was popularized by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century and thus not one that emanated from Jesus or anybody of real authority.

Ijaz brought up the concept of agency which negated Anthony Rogers' claims and pulled the foundations from Anthony's arguments. Ijaz brought forward the text of Zechariah 1 where the angel is said to be communicating with the Lord. Ijaz uses common sense to highlight this angel is not God through deductions from the following passage:

12 Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?

13 And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words.

Ijaz Ahmed tackled the claim that the angel of the Lord was worshipped and stated that Anthony's claims were 'intelectually abusive'

Conclusion

Ijaz Ahmed won the debate hands down. Quite what Answering Muslims (Anthony Rogers) was thinking in agreeing to debate his personal view, which is contrary to common reasoning and I hasten to add that many, many evangelical Christians do not even hold, is beyond me.
 Overall, Ijaz Ahmed based his arguments on commone sense. Anthony Rogers threw common sense out of the window in order to accomodate his personal belief in the angel of the Lord being God. I think Ijaz's strong understanding of this belief and his willingeness to go toe-to-toe with Rogers even in the narrow-line of argumentation that Rogers employed worked out to be a positive for the truth-seeker as the lazy response and misdirection of 'my opponent doesn't understand' was pre-empted, thus the truth-seeker has a relatively clear run on this topic.

The cross examination was misdirected towards sematics by Anthony Rogers. Most of this debate was not beneficial, largely due to Anthony Rogers' rigid and semantic-laden approach. Ijaz's common sense arguments are beneficial for those who want to ponder on this belief.

In my opinion the debate format was not really in-line with the topic of the debate and the narrowness of the topic. The debate was too long and the cross examinations could have been skipped. The debate format of 15 mins OS, 10 min rebuttals, a further 5 mins rebuttals and then a 3-5 min concluding remarks would have been an easier format for the debate.This format would have kept the debate easier to follow.

I would have liked to have seen Ijaz further use and expand on the more basic arguments against this belief of the angel of the Lord being God:

The Book of Hebrews (which many Christians believe was written by Paul) states that angels are ministering spirits and nor did he say this angel was God (thus even Paul or whoever they believe wrote this NT book did not believe that the angel of the Lord was God):

Hebrews 1:14: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?


Jesus (p) nor any other Prophet taught this belief (nobody in the Bible,even in the NT, teaches this). No verse in Christian and Jewish scripture teaches this belief - it's simply an assumption by certain Trinitarians based on their feeling of 'who elese could this angel be' as well as their frustration in not seeing Jesus in the OT.

An angel is a messenger, thus by definition is not God. Ijaz did present this point quite vociferously.

One of the reasons this belief is borne out of is the Trinitarians' puzzlement due to their belief that Jesus existed throught the time of the OT but never showed up - thus this belief in the angel of the Lord being God is an attempt by them to force Jesus into the OT.

This angel is seen to be under the authority of God. This contradicts the Trinitarian view of co-equality. Also common sense dictates that as the angel is subservient to God it naturally means it is not God - this is one of Ijaz's common sense arguments presented to Anthony.

Anthony Rogers will believe Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them yet many, many Christians do not believe the angel of the Lord is God. Why is it that these so-called Holy-Spirit inspired Christians cannot agree on whether this angel is God or not?

Some Interesting Wikepedia for Anthony on the Angel of the Lord
During the Reformation the Angel of the Lord was usually considered a general representative of God the Father, due to several verses stating that no one can look upon the face of YHWH and live.[16]

In Evangelical Christianity, some commentators interpret the phrase "Angel of the Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to a pre-human appearance of Jesus Christ or Christophany. Others comment the functions of the Angel of the Lord prefigure Christ, and there is no clear mention of the Angel of the Lord in the New Testament because the Messiah himself is this person.[17]
 
Ben Witherington says: The angel of the Lord is just that - an angel.

Donate to Calling Christians:
http://callingchristians.com/2014/01/21/donate-to-calling-christians/

More information on the belief of the angel of the Lord being God:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=angel+of+the+lord&x=0&y=0

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

A Reminder to Anthony Rogers, Answering Muslims and ABN (Plus Sam Shamoun)

I just don't get it. Certain folk continue to make wild  and fallacious claims do so despite the fact that their claims have been debunked in the past.

Rather than belabouring the point here is the refutation article posted in its entirety to help pull certain folk to intellectual honesty.

Some Christian critics who know basic Arabic are claiming the Quran teaches us that Allah prays. They normally use this argument in an attempt to counter and pacify the Muslim use of the Bible which points to Jesus praying (Matthew 26:39).

Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?

The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.

Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:

*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views

After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.

The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics

There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:


Quran 2:157

Dr. Mohsin : They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.
Pickthal : Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.
Yusuf Ali : They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu 'Alaikum).
Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.

The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.

Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].

To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!

Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:Quran 33:56
George Sale 33:56Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.
John Medows Rodwell 33:56Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.
Arthur John Arberry 33:56God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.Quran 33:43
Arthur John Arberry 33:43It is He who blesses you,  and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.
George Sale 33:43It is He who is  gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.
John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.Quran 2:157
AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those---they are the truly guided

JM Rodwell 2:157On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided
George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.

So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?
The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims

So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.

Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.

If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.

Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.

Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”

So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:

“As for its meaning of 'forgiveness', it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: 'He forgives you', and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: 'They seek forgiveness for you'. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: 'Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.'” [3]

So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?

If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.

Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.

To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:
“Al-Bukhari said: "Abu Al-`Aliyah said: "Allah's Salah is His praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.'' “ [4]

So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?

Conclusion
The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.

Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.

A Response to A Christian Critic

In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]

Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:

Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)

Yahya Snow responds:

Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157

Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”
The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.

Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:

“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”
Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!

Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]

To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.

A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:
“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)

There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.

However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.

Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.

Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).
Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.

Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56

These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)
Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:
He it is who prays (yusallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer

Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer

Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.

Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?
So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..

Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you..
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..

Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you.. 

John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..

George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…

Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…

Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet...

John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..

George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..

Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.

So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.

If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.

Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.

So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.

This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.

To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.

The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!

Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely

Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:
“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:

“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good." [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””
Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:

Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. [4]

Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.

As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.

Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature
Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:

“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?

It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.

Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary
Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:

Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, 'Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar' has explained "Sala'h" as follows:

'Al-Sala'h' and 'Al-Salawaat': used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, 'Sala'h' is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to glorify' and the particular worship is called 'Sala'h', because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word "Sala'h", May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)” Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.

Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?

As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.

From Ibn Kathir:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)

“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun

Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.

Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html
Conclusion

Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.

The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.
If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.
So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.


References

[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing
[5] http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=788§ion=family_society&subsection=

A pre-debate comment: Does Islam Teach Pure Monotheism? Shadid Lewis vs. Anthony Rogers

Is it silly season? Is it?

I hope you're sitting down, we have a Christian missionary group setting up a debate 'Does Islam Teach Pure Monotheism?'

Now, even the one who has basic knowledge of Islam knows Islam teaches pure monotheism - all scholars of the faith will agree on this.

However, when you have a Christian apologist (Anthony Rogers) who actually believes an angel in the Old Testament is God one would not be so surprised such a debate is arranged as this Christian apologist's reckoning does not comply with orthodoxy, scholarship nor sound reasoning.

Here is a scholar to tell you what all other scholars of Islam will tell you - Islam is PURE MONOTHEISM:

"Our doctrine could not be more straight forward. The most pure, exalted, uncompromising monotheism: the clearest idea of God there has ever been" - Dr T J Winter

In fact, this 'debate' has already been executed in some capacity with Anthony Rogers' colleague (Sam Shamoun - who also, upon last check, shares similar views to Anthony Rogers). You can view the 'debate' here:



Having said that - this site may well feature a review for this debate as per Anthony Roger's previous debate: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/debate-review-does-prophet-muhammad.html

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.whyislam.org/

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Facts for the Honest Not for the Dishonest - Pastor George Saieg's Liars

 

Recently I highlighted Anthony Rogers of AnsweringIslam.org as being conned by his Christian missionary colleague, Sam Shamoun, concerning a narration from AlTabari. Shamoun in his desperation to repel Muslim argumentation regarding Deut 33:2 decided to fudge things (that's to say he turned to deception).

Sahmoun presented this narration from AlTabari in his attempt to convince people that 12,000 soldiers took part in the Conquest of Mecca , this is how he cited it:

The Messenger marched with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his companions [who had marched with him and] with whose help God had facilitated the conquest of Mecca. Thus there were 12,000 in all ..."

Notice the citation is incomplete. Shamoun's objective here is to convince people this narration from AlTabari is speaking about the conquest of Mecca.

However, when the entire citation is quoted one can see it's not about the Conquest of Mecca but about the Battle of Hunain (against the Hawazin). Here is the entire citation:

The Messenger marched with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his companions [who had marched with him and] with whose help God had facilitated the conquest of Mecca. Thus there were 12,000 in all. The Messenger of God placed 'Attab b. Asid b. Abi al-'As b. Umayyah b. 'Abd Shams in charge of Mecca [to look after] the men who stayed behind while he proceeded to confront Hawazin."

Anthony Rogers is  silent on this, why? Simple, he knows Shamoun was deceptive and conned him!

Why did Shamoun hide the crucial information of who this battle was against? Because he wanted people to think Al Tabari's narration taught 12,000 soldiers took part in the Conquest of Mecca thus aiding his attempt to refute the Muslim argument that the 10,000 saints mentioned in Deut 33:2 referred to the 10,000 soldiers with Prophet Muhammad at the Conquest of Mecca.

Recently Shamoun, Rogers and one of their ardent followers have taken to obfuscation on this issue. They have remained silent on this issue but have tried to introduce other sources into the mix.

One step at a time fellas. Why did Shamoun deliberately deceive people concerning this narration in Al-Tabari?

For more information on this saga see here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/answeringislamorg-tacit-admission-of.html

N.B Anthony Rogers recently accused me of disparaging Jesus (p). I stated he was lying and asked him for examples. He was immature and provided no examples. Stop lying Anthony and apologize. Screenshot:

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

AnsweringIslam.org Cons Anthony Rogers

Does it get much more dishonest and pathetic than this. The anti-Muslim website, AnsweringIslam.org, actually winds up conning its own contributor.

An article written by their chief writer Sam Shamoun contained some deceptive quoting which one of their other contributors (Anthony Rogers) used in a debate against a Muslim opponent on whether Prophet Muhammad (p) is mentioned in their modern-day Bible.

Watch this shocking video highlighting the manner in which AnsweringIslam.org is even conning its own Christian colleagues!

Anthony Rogers Conned by AnsweringIslam.org



If video does not play, please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6sCJdN366w

For those who want more information on this issue please see:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/answeringislamorg-tacit-admission-of.html

Anthony Rogers - does he have enough moral and testicular fortitude to speak out?



It's important for Christians to speak out against such dishonesty. So far Anthony has not spoken out. Don't be afraid Anthony, speak the truth...

Does Answeringislam.org believe in all their resurrection stories unlike William Lane Craig?:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/william-lane-craig-doubts-resurrection.html

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Anthony Rogers Banned and 'Ijaz Ahmed Exposed' Nonsense

I did communicate a message to you previously here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/please-mr-anthony-rogers-of-abn.html



Anthony you are hereby banned from commenting on this blog. You must improve your attitude before even attempting to comment again on this blog.

Your tirades are old, tired, boring and ridiculous.

Your latest comment is just evidence that you are not willing to use an ounce of comprehension and nor are you willing to dialogue in a reasoned and well-mannered fashion. Perhaps it's a sign of your inability to tackle the argumentation Muslims are putting forward.

Here's an example of your ability to throw out comprehension in order to attack people. Do you need a dictionary to differentiate between 'say' and 'seem'?

My comment to RadMod: Your analogy of Microsoft doesn't fit. Bassim Gorial actually preaches Christianity to non-Christians. Put this together with the teachings of 1 Peter 3:15 then one would expect a Christian to take this invitation seriously. What are you afraid of? You and Anthony don't seem to have confidence in Bassim.Don't you believe him to be a true Christian who follows 1 Peter 3:5?

Rogers: I didn't say anything about lacking confidence in Bassim. But you will delete this post and lievagain about what I said. That is why I will expose your deception in the next couple of days on Answering Muslims. I only lack confidence in YOU. If you read your post, you will see that you lack confidence in yourself as well. That is why you won't debate even Bassim but are issuing challenges for someone other than yourself to debate him. How sad.


Anthony please stop your championing of your buddies as though people are afraid to debate them. Most people have not heard of Sam and the rest of your buddies. This is the type of rebuke that your empty proclamations receive:

Paul Williams: Anthony Rogers, you really talk rubbish sometimes,

'You guys have shown repeatedly by your actions that you love to prey on the weak, but you run from the battle with your tails tucked between your legs when a real opponent is on the scene.'

On 21st February, representing MDI, I shared a platform at Cambridge University with the former Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Lord Williams, to discuss 'Jesus in Islam and Christianity'. He was also a professor of Christian Theology at Oxford University.

I agree with Ijaz Ahmad who said on my blog yesterday:

'Sam Shamoun is desperate for a debate because no serious Muslim apologist would care to fall for his trap. He is frankly too immature and too infantile to hold a discussion without spewing insults from his tongue.

Br. Yahya, have Sam undergo psychiatric evaluation on his mental stability before even thinking about going into a debate with him. He cannot debate. Sam Shamoun needs someone to mock, insult and curse to magnify his bravado and to impress his herd.
Sam, if you really want someone to debate, why not debate a Christian academic on Textual Criticism, or Soteriology, rather than fight Muslims when we use your own scholarship against you? The truth is, Christian scholars are embarrassed by you, Muslim da’ees rather debate educated people and the lay people are tired of your rancor and petulant behaviour.'

Oh and please quit bemoaning the fact some of your silly and insulting comments have been deleted. Your boss (Dave) blocks people for simply refuting him. Numerous people have experienced this.

Anthony, please stop.

You are banned from this blog. Please do not comment on this blog until you have re-evaluated your approach for the better. I call you to less testosterone, calm, sincerity and comprehension,

'Ijaz Ahmed Exposed' Nonsense.

I am not too sure if you (Rogers) and/or your buddies are responsible for that nonsense. Please don't post any links to that tacky nonsense again. I have respect and love for my Muslim brother, Ijaz Ahmed, and I shall not accept those links again.

As for the material on that site, in the comment section on this blog Ijaz confirmed it has nothing to do with him. In any case, that grainy image which contains a testimony of somebody would have been put on the net by somebody with sincere intentions about a SERIOUS and sensitive subject. What do you fundy Christians do upon struggling to argue with Calling Christians on theological matters? You make some ridiculous blog post based on somebody's childhood abuse testimony and desperately try to link it to Ijaz.

Is there any wonder folk don't take you and your leaders seriously? You guys continually supply us with crazy antics to rebuke or just sigh at.

I guess this website is driving some folk crazy:
http://callingchristians.com/

Oh and it seems to have a section dealing with the banned Anthony Rogers:
http://callingchristians.com/anthony-rogers/

Please also be sure to have a gander at the Sam Shamoun and David Wood sections on that site. I guess some of the rabble that support those guys aren't too happy with Ijaz.

Learn about Islam: http://www.whyislam.org/

Please Mr Anthony Rogers of ABN

@ Mr R Anthony Rogers

I deleted your comment :)

Please don’t allow your contributor status at a website that regurgitates negative news stories about Muslims over-inflate your self-importance.

Please don’t allow your appearance/s on an internet TV program over-inflate your self-importance.

 

Please don’t threaten to post about me on the Muslim-hating website run by your leader for your leader (and his bank balance).

Please don’t insult me or this blog’s stats again. I had a check of blogger’s stats and noticed it’s over 400,000 on this site alone. Not bad considering most of the material is self-generated and produced in my spare time in between work and studies; rather than the anti-Muslim copy and paste material you boys serve up all the while getting paid for it as your occupation (oh wait perhaps it’s only Dave who gets paid unless he chucks a few dollars in the direction of yourself, Hogan and Samuel Green). Do tell if he throws a few dollars your way to compensate you for your toils and blind support.

Please don’t come over and disturb my flow with your testosterone-fuelled spiel (learn that from Sam?). I enjoy my vlogging (I’d imagine ~ half a million folk have viewed the videos on one channel alone) and blogging.

Please don’t say I have never engaged you. Weren’t you the bloke whom I rebuked some time ago for believing an angel in the OT was God?

Please don’t say I lied when I removed your post. You did insult people’s intelligence with your comment, hence it’s removal.

Please don’t say I have not refuted Sam and Dave as this would be a falsehood. You don’t want to be speaking falsehoods, do you?

Sam Shamoun section:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/David%20Wood

David Wood section:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun

Hmmm me thinks there’s plenty of material in there that constitutes refutation.

I will happily debate you and settle the issue once for all. Call in to ABN and let's set it up. [Rogers]

 

Why am I going to stay up till 1am GMT to call you when I have to be up for prayers and then work? WORK. Let me write it again, WORK. And again WORK. I understand that Sam doesn’t work, he relies on donations from internet users to support him. Perhaps Dave does the same. The rest of us have lives.

If you delete this post I am going to write a blog post at Answering Muslims that will be seen by scores more people on a single day than will ever visit your blog in the course of an entire year. [Rogers]

 

Uh? What are you going to do? Post about me deleting your comment? Come on, get real.

 

Anthony, you are more than welcome to dialogue as long as you drop your attitude and adopt a more sincere approach. I invite you to visit this link:

 

http://www.thedeenshow.com/

The Finest Christian Apologist Questioned...

So Anthony “the finest Christian apologist” Rogers popped over and was presented with a few questions. As usual, as the going got tough Rogers and co went all silent. I thought the finest Christian apologist would be able to offer an answer or two. Perhaps Rogers was busy at church or sleeping. Arise from your slumber Mr. Rogers and begin giving reason for the hope within – the questions will keep coming.

1MoreMuslim poses tough questions and has more to follow...

Why Paul makes clear distinction between the True God and the false Mortal Gods? And Why Elijah was mocking a God who sleeps and travels? And when the Divine becomes flesh does he assume limitation of knowledge? Why the word , being divine, suddenly doesn't know the hour? The human limitations overshadows the unlimited divine nature?

I think his reference to Elijah is taken from 1 Kings 18:27:

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." [NIV]

Elijah’s mockery does also affect the Christian god too as the Christian god (Jesus, p) travels and sleeps (and even worships God!). I guess this is one of the numerous reasons why Christians so readily skip over the Old Testament.

Gospel contradictions

Anthony, you know what, I have NEVER seen a Christian answer (adequately) on the Gospel contradictions. Mike Licona failed to impress me perhaps you as the “finest Christian apologist” would like to pass on your explanation. Here is an excerpt from Geza Vermes’ list of flat contradictions – don’t get too comfortable – it is only the first serving concerning the resurrection accounts ONLY:

The accounts differ regarding the number and identity of the women who visited the tomb: one, Mary Magdalene, in John and Mark B; two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew; three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, in Mark A; and several, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women from Galilee, in Luke. Such variations would have rendered the testimony unacceptable in a Jewish court.

Once you have finished with these please work on the rest which can be found here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/05/contradictions-in-gospels-geza-vermes.html

Once you have supplied explanations for that particular list please move onto the irreconcilable contradictions concerning the “crucifixion” accounts. Yep, plenty to be cracking on with…

After all that you could actually challenge your silent mode as the posts concerning the incarnation and holy spirit seem to have pushed your mute button on previous occasions...

Oh heck, we may as well push the boat out seen as we have you here. Here's what every Christian wants answered. I am yet to see a decent answer. The stage is yours, "the finest Christian apologist":

Bart Ehrman rattles off a few from the "thousands" of contradictions within the New Testament and discusses the doubts over the gospel of John and the contradictions around the crucifixion stories



Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Ehrman goes even further, revealing not only that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don't actually exist within its pages--they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts. The Scriptures did not come down to us through the ages in one, harmonious,unbroken version. The story of Jesus was, in fact, interrupted.

I bet "the finest Christian apologist" rushes off into silent mode and wishes he never popped over...

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.co.uk

A Big "Huh?" and Answering Islam Abandon Keith Truth?

A big "Huh?"

I guess you require a fair amount of delusion to come out with Shamounian style comments. Here is his latest:

@YahyaSnow you are correct, another poor performance by a muhammadan and black stone worshiper. And instead of running your mouth here why don't you be a man for once and show us how it is done by debating me on ABN?I have literally begged you to debate me and all you can do is make excuses for running away. I promise you that what I will do to you if we ever debate will make what I did to this guy look tame in comparison. Time to put up. We are sick of your barking. [Sam "Islam allows sex with animals" Shamoun]

Could somebody usher him to the Sam Shamoun section (I notice there are already 30 gems in there, read 'em and weep Shamounian) in order to humble him, either that or take the bloke to the funny farm. What an odd man this bloke is!

AnsweringIslam Abandon Keith Truth

So Keith was beginning his fledgling career as an apologist and began to make unsupported claims which we disproved quite spectacularly and emphatically - thus Keith was reduced to a humbled and humiliated silence - this blog has a habit of muting the downright shoddy (just ask Dave Wood, Sam Shamoun and Nabeel Qureshi for starters...and in a couple of week's time (God willing) take a trip to prison and speak to Kent Hovind!)

Surprisingly, Keith's colleagues have remained silent despite the fact they would share SIMILAR views as those which were proven to be spectacularly false. Why did they not come to the aid of Keith? Has Keith been thrown under the bus?

Anthony Rogers and Sam Shamoun did not come to the aid of young Keith. the message here seems to be quite clear, Keith you're on your own when you get caught out!

Note to a radical follower of AI

Radical Moderate, please email me the link to the ABN episode featuring Mr. Rogers. Let's bring a couple of rebukes to Anthony Rogers...

Blind Bartimaeus...

Bart, PLEASE start offering some scholarly input rather than talking pictures. Perhaps the cat got your tongue when we posted on the unknown authorship of Hebrews (James White) and the NUMEROUS resurrections Christians believe in (Geza Vermes) as well as other problematic issues related to Christianity (for instance, check the section on the Holy Spirit)

Talking pictures...

Here is the pic you chose to talk about in the stead of the serious holes in Trinitarian Christianity. I guess your role is to do anything to distract. It ain't going to work here.

Thanks to the Muslim who messaged me about the pic issue. May Allah bless him further and always keep him on the worship of the god whom Jesus (p) worshipped.

I invite all concerned to worship the God whom Jesus (p) worshipped. Don't act surprised, even the bible will tell you Jesus worshipped God - cue Bart's distraction!

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another - Proverbs

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.co.uk