Part one of a multipart series.
Showing posts with label World Religions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Religions. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The Islamic Messiah, Revisited
You'll remember some time back, I posted an article comparing the expected Islamic "Messiah" with our Biblical Antichrist. To save you time in reading that whole article, here is a link that'll take you directly to the comparison of the Antichrist and the true Messiah, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
In light of that post, I'd like to point you to this article I just ran into. Let me tease you with the following excerpt from the article:
"A video has been newly posted on YouTube in which the radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan says of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking.""
Hummm. I wonder if that makes this "gaffe" make more sense now?
I seem to remember something in God's Word about things like this from Mark 13:
Now, I'm not one to go around making sloppy guesses, but here we have one of the biggies in Islam making reference to Obama as "the Messiah". Islam is looking for the soon return of the Antichrist (a.k.a. their 'messiah') who is a tool of the devil. Obama is slick. Obama is very charismatic. Obama is the self-proclaimed "Citizen of the World" that doesn't travel abroad as an American. No flag on his plane...which might offend some overseas. No. Plastering campaign posters at the western wall as if campaigning for world leader (and yes, I believe he was and still is). And Oh! "We are the ones We've been waiting for...". Not only that, there is a big push for globalism in finance, government and even religion. And if that isn't enough, Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple, which will be present at the time of Antichrist. They're just waiting for control of the mount so they can build it. They have all the accessories made, such as the candleabra and the tools for the Priest. All they're waiting for is the temple!
Louis Farrakhan is a Muslim. To refer to Obama as "Messiah" without meaning the Islamic Messiah would make him guilty of blasphemy under Islamic law. For those who just insist on believing that Barack Obama has to be a Christian just because he claims he's one, please wake up! The game is over! The cat is out of the bag!
Sure. Tell me that Louis Farrakhan believes Obama is a Christian. Make - me - laugh!
In light of that post, I'd like to point you to this article I just ran into. Let me tease you with the following excerpt from the article:
"A video has been newly posted on YouTube in which the radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan says of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking.""
Hummm. I wonder if that makes this "gaffe" make more sense now?
I seem to remember something in God's Word about things like this from Mark 13:
20 “Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no 1life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.
21 “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is 1the Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him;
22 for false Christs and afalse prophets will arise, and will show signs and bwonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 “But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance."
Now, I'm not one to go around making sloppy guesses, but here we have one of the biggies in Islam making reference to Obama as "the Messiah". Islam is looking for the soon return of the Antichrist (a.k.a. their 'messiah') who is a tool of the devil. Obama is slick. Obama is very charismatic. Obama is the self-proclaimed "Citizen of the World" that doesn't travel abroad as an American. No flag on his plane...which might offend some overseas. No. Plastering campaign posters at the western wall as if campaigning for world leader (and yes, I believe he was and still is). And Oh! "We are the ones We've been waiting for...". Not only that, there is a big push for globalism in finance, government and even religion. And if that isn't enough, Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple, which will be present at the time of Antichrist. They're just waiting for control of the mount so they can build it. They have all the accessories made, such as the candleabra and the tools for the Priest. All they're waiting for is the temple!
Louis Farrakhan is a Muslim. To refer to Obama as "Messiah" without meaning the Islamic Messiah would make him guilty of blasphemy under Islamic law. For those who just insist on believing that Barack Obama has to be a Christian just because he claims he's one, please wake up! The game is over! The cat is out of the bag!
Sure. Tell me that Louis Farrakhan believes Obama is a Christian. Make - me - laugh!
Better Bone up on Islam!
Didn't think you'd ever hear of this, huh? Well, we live in a brave new country.
Here comes the outright influx of Islam directly to your local toy section at Target. Might not be a bad idea to make sure your kids have a Biblical foundation!
Here comes the outright influx of Islam directly to your local toy section at Target. Might not be a bad idea to make sure your kids have a Biblical foundation!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Their "Messiah" is Our Antichrist!
It was a while back that I received an email from someone in Canada who is apparently of the Islamic religion. The comment that was submitted contained the following statement, among many others:
"You have not lost hope as yet . There is still time. Go over the Quran maybe it might help you see things clearly."
While it's not my habit of posting such comments, it isn't because I have no concern for the person or what they think. And, as for my own welfare, what this person may or may not have meant by "there is still time" is unknown and not relevant. Was it a threat of an oncoming persecution by Islam on those who reject Islam? I don't know, although I am certain one is coming. Is it possible that this is an Islamic warning of "convert or perish in hell"? I doubt it -- conversion to Islam is no guarantee that the god of Islam will accept them anyway - the god of Islam is a very capricious god. The closest thing you get to assurance in Islam is martyrdom. Could it have been a prank? Perhaps but I thank that is unlikely.
But no matter. They are lost and in need of the Savior. So we pray for them. There is only "one name under heaven whereby we must be saved" and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. I would ask this person if Mohammad died for their sin? We've all sinned. We've all broken God's law which is as immutable as God's character. That includes myself, you and this person who sent the above statement.
Having said that, I wanted to fulfill a "promise" (not really a promise but I said I'd do this) by simply posting a link to a page that reflects what I've been learning about Islam. If you are interested in end times developments, you'll find it of interest if you haven't been made aware of it before. The summation can be found here. It is a comparison of the Islamic "Messiah" and the Biblical Messiah. If you want the details and documentation, it is here. This isn't the material that brought me to this study, I think it was a broadcast that I heard on Messianic Jewish radio a few months ago. But the points I heard are all there, at least mostly.
The title of this post gives away what you can expect to read at the links I provided.
Convert to Islam? Me? No. No thanks. I prefer to trust the Scriptures which have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be reliable through history, archaeology, prophecy and my own personal experience. If that means my beheading, so be it. Besides, I believe that the Savior Who died for my sin deserves all I've got.
"You have not lost hope as yet . There is still time. Go over the Quran maybe it might help you see things clearly."
While it's not my habit of posting such comments, it isn't because I have no concern for the person or what they think. And, as for my own welfare, what this person may or may not have meant by "there is still time" is unknown and not relevant. Was it a threat of an oncoming persecution by Islam on those who reject Islam? I don't know, although I am certain one is coming. Is it possible that this is an Islamic warning of "convert or perish in hell"? I doubt it -- conversion to Islam is no guarantee that the god of Islam will accept them anyway - the god of Islam is a very capricious god. The closest thing you get to assurance in Islam is martyrdom. Could it have been a prank? Perhaps but I thank that is unlikely.
But no matter. They are lost and in need of the Savior. So we pray for them. There is only "one name under heaven whereby we must be saved" and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. I would ask this person if Mohammad died for their sin? We've all sinned. We've all broken God's law which is as immutable as God's character. That includes myself, you and this person who sent the above statement.
Having said that, I wanted to fulfill a "promise" (not really a promise but I said I'd do this) by simply posting a link to a page that reflects what I've been learning about Islam. If you are interested in end times developments, you'll find it of interest if you haven't been made aware of it before. The summation can be found here. It is a comparison of the Islamic "Messiah" and the Biblical Messiah. If you want the details and documentation, it is here. This isn't the material that brought me to this study, I think it was a broadcast that I heard on Messianic Jewish radio a few months ago. But the points I heard are all there, at least mostly.
The title of this post gives away what you can expect to read at the links I provided.
Convert to Islam? Me? No. No thanks. I prefer to trust the Scriptures which have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be reliable through history, archaeology, prophecy and my own personal experience. If that means my beheading, so be it. Besides, I believe that the Savior Who died for my sin deserves all I've got.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Infallible Pope Admits Being Wrong about Martin Luther
From Fide-O blog:
"Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
James White comments on the various problems this will cause for several real heretics:
By the way, the Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. Furthermore, the Pope has rewritten the Good Friday prayer for the "conversion" of the Jewish people in the old Latin rite in an attempt to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism.
So don't be fooled. Rome is not trying to correct its unbiblical theology by "rehabilitating Martin Luther." Rather, Rome is trying to help itself politically. This is typical Roman Catholicism... its all about the money."
"Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
James White comments on the various problems this will cause for several real heretics:
By the way, the Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. Furthermore, the Pope has rewritten the Good Friday prayer for the "conversion" of the Jewish people in the old Latin rite in an attempt to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism.
So don't be fooled. Rome is not trying to correct its unbiblical theology by "rehabilitating Martin Luther." Rather, Rome is trying to help itself politically. This is typical Roman Catholicism... its all about the money."
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The New World Religion
From Christian Worldview Network:
"Brannon Howse: March 4
This program sounds like a movie script but it is real and you are seeing it first hand. Brannon said this was one of the most revealing and important radio program he has ever hosted. After years of research, writing and radio, the events of the past few weeks have revealed the merger of modern-day "Christianity" & evangelicalism. with the New Age Movement and Universalism. The players are assembled and are laying the groundwork for a world religion and a world leader as predicted in the Bible. This is happening fast and you are seeing what the Bible foretold thousands of years ago. Brannon interviews Ingrid Schlueter and you must listen now"
Go to the following links and be warned...
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Bible and Islam: Posted Comments
(that weren't posted) Part 2
It was two days ago that I posted the first part of this apologetic. It was in response to a couple of spam comments that two individuals from Oman submitted for posting at this blog. Essentially, as best I can tell, the wannabe comments were nothing more than plugs for a pro-Islam, anti Christian apologetics website. And while it is certainly not my desire to squelch any discussion with those who may disagree with me theologically, I see no need to publish a link to a website which does nothing more than promote the error of Islam. Especially, of course, if publishing it will not lead to any discussion.
But I do think it the better part of wisdom to address the core of their message, which has to do with various key doctrines involving Christ and the Bible, among others. Last time, I dealt, however briefly, with the first message. As you will recall, one large problem with their argument is that they directly contradict the claims of their own Quran. This had to do specifically with the charge that the Bible is corrupted; a claim that is commonly made by Muslims. However, we found that by saying this, they must either be at odds with the claims of the Quran, (and/or Muhammed whom they claim was infallible) or they must concede that the Quran must be false in this regard. They can't have it both ways. The Quran, which claims to be infallibly provided through Muhammad by Allah claims that the scriptures are reliable.
Now, they want to say that our Scriptures are now corrupt, but they ignore vital evidence -- that we have 24,000 manuscripts and fragments which prove that our Scriptures have been faithfully preserved. So, objective evidence apparently means nothing to them.
This time, I'll repost the second message and at least get a start on dealing with some of the points the commenter ("Islam") included in his message.
"Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
"Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")
Regarding the second claim in the list, "Is the Bible the Word of God", I think we've already dealt with this. The poster of the comment doesn't even understand his own Quran! So, I suppose they would be forced to either change their argument or face the reality that the Quran isn't accurate (not "Expert"). And since they don't list other "experts", the onus, I believe, is on them to provide the evidence.
The first claim I will deal with (however imperfectly) is "Did Jesus really die on the cross?". And of course they say the evidence says "no". Of course, this is no new argument. Even secularists have attacked the veracity of the scriptures on this. They want to say He passed out, or others will admit He died but they want to explain the empty tomb by saying his body was left on the cross and picked apart by birds.
The evidence for this particular person's argument, I presume, would be the text of the Quran, which states that Jesus was raised to heaven, having put His likeness on another whom died on the cross instead. I quote the following from "Answering Islam":
No, it's kind of like saying "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". I don't have enough faith to believe that a false god gave Jesus his likeness and had someone else die in His place. I think it takes less faith to simply take the Bible at it's Word and say "Jesus died, just as He said He would (Matthew 16:21) and that He was raised from the dead on the third day (ibid), again, just as He said He would." No, I wasn't there. I didn't see it for myself. Even if I had been there, according to the Quran, it would have done me no good because they allege that Jesus and Allah pulled a sleight of hand. This, of course, is pure mysticism. But I trust the Bible which has time and again shown itself to be reliable. . .contrary to the false god of Islam.
For further study on the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ, check out this link.
Ok. I think I'll pause there. But what have we learned? Simply this: Those who would use the Quran to discredit the Bible and the deity of Christ ultimately have a dilemma, namely, the very document which they want to use as evidence either contradicts what they claim, or it discredits itself. They contradict their own book and contradict what it says. Or, they affirm what it teaches (such as Jesus as a prophet and the accuracy of the Scriptures), without realizing that in the process they contradict themselves (a Jesus that falsely predicted His own death and resurrection and thus a false prophet).
Is it just me, or does this make one's head spin?
Until next time....
But I do think it the better part of wisdom to address the core of their message, which has to do with various key doctrines involving Christ and the Bible, among others. Last time, I dealt, however briefly, with the first message. As you will recall, one large problem with their argument is that they directly contradict the claims of their own Quran. This had to do specifically with the charge that the Bible is corrupted; a claim that is commonly made by Muslims. However, we found that by saying this, they must either be at odds with the claims of the Quran, (and/or Muhammed whom they claim was infallible) or they must concede that the Quran must be false in this regard. They can't have it both ways. The Quran, which claims to be infallibly provided through Muhammad by Allah claims that the scriptures are reliable.
Now, they want to say that our Scriptures are now corrupt, but they ignore vital evidence -- that we have 24,000 manuscripts and fragments which prove that our Scriptures have been faithfully preserved. So, objective evidence apparently means nothing to them.
This time, I'll repost the second message and at least get a start on dealing with some of the points the commenter ("Islam") included in his message.
Here is the second of the two comments I received from the reader in Oman:
From "Islam", also from Masqat Oman:
"Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
"Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")
Regarding the second claim in the list, "Is the Bible the Word of God", I think we've already dealt with this. The poster of the comment doesn't even understand his own Quran! So, I suppose they would be forced to either change their argument or face the reality that the Quran isn't accurate (not "Expert"). And since they don't list other "experts", the onus, I believe, is on them to provide the evidence.
The first claim I will deal with (however imperfectly) is "Did Jesus really die on the cross?". And of course they say the evidence says "no". Of course, this is no new argument. Even secularists have attacked the veracity of the scriptures on this. They want to say He passed out, or others will admit He died but they want to explain the empty tomb by saying his body was left on the cross and picked apart by birds.
The evidence for this particular person's argument, I presume, would be the text of the Quran, which states that Jesus was raised to heaven, having put His likeness on another whom died on the cross instead. I quote the following from "Answering Islam":
"What does the Qur'an say about the crucifixion of Jesus?
- And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger
- they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those
who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit
of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. S. 4:157 Pickthall - That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";
- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge,
but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- S. 4:157 Yusuf Ali - And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: S. 4:157 Al-Hilali & Khan"
No, it's kind of like saying "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". I don't have enough faith to believe that a false god gave Jesus his likeness and had someone else die in His place. I think it takes less faith to simply take the Bible at it's Word and say "Jesus died, just as He said He would (Matthew 16:21) and that He was raised from the dead on the third day (ibid), again, just as He said He would." No, I wasn't there. I didn't see it for myself. Even if I had been there, according to the Quran, it would have done me no good because they allege that Jesus and Allah pulled a sleight of hand. This, of course, is pure mysticism. But I trust the Bible which has time and again shown itself to be reliable. . .contrary to the false god of Islam.
For further study on the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ, check out this link.
Ok. I think I'll pause there. But what have we learned? Simply this: Those who would use the Quran to discredit the Bible and the deity of Christ ultimately have a dilemma, namely, the very document which they want to use as evidence either contradicts what they claim, or it discredits itself. They contradict their own book and contradict what it says. Or, they affirm what it teaches (such as Jesus as a prophet and the accuracy of the Scriptures), without realizing that in the process they contradict themselves (a Jesus that falsely predicted His own death and resurrection and thus a false prophet).
Is it just me, or does this make one's head spin?
Until next time....
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Bible and Islam: Posted Comments
(that weren't posted)
Strange title for a blog entry, isn't it? Well, there's a reason for it. See, lately, we've been getting what are basically "spam comments" from Muslims in Oman. Seems that they are finding the Gadfly by googling "Bible Islam Post Comment". So, the title is kind of contrived in order to provide the keywords they are googling for. If they are hitting this, they are not bothering someone else...hopefully.
The comments are pro-Qur'an, anti Bible. Now, because these people are most likely simply trying to inundate the blogosphere with Koranic error, I don't take it personally. And if I'm right, they probably won't even check back to see if their comments are posted.
Still, because of the gravity of the issue, I thought it might be timely as well as wise to at least publish what they had to say and why it doesn't work. After all, if they put their ideas out there, they should be willing to have them put up to scrutiny.
Both comments (neither of which I posted) were basically an advertisement for a pro-Islamic site. As far as I can tell, it isn't a new site and as a matter of fact, I think I've seen it out there before.
So without further ado, I'll post their comments:
"What are we supposed to believe about the Holy Bible? Is it still the same? Do we believe everything in it? What does Quran say about the Bible?" (link eliminated)
"Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
"Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")
All this & more - internets site to compare İslam & Christianity: (link eliminated)"
The first comment asks four questions:
1. "What are we supposed to believe about the Holy Bible?"
2. "Is it still the same?"
3. "Do we believe everything in it?"
4. "What does Quran say about the Bible?"
The first and third are kind of related, the second and fourth kind of stand out more. I'll address those first.
One charge that Muslims make about the Bible is that it has been corrupted. Somewhere along the line, they would argue, someone got hold of all the Bibles and changed them. They would say, therefore, that what we have now is not accurate. This is not a new argument. I've heard it from atheists, liberal theologians before hearing it from Muslims. So, nothing new here.
What they, as others, have missed is that we know what we have has not been changed. The old "transmission error" argument was very popular until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, someone argues that someone altered the text of a bible somewhere? What difference does that make? We have manuscripts that validate the translations we have today. As a matter of fact, by the time you consider all the manuscripts and fragments, we have close to 24,000 manuscripts to verify the accuracy of the English translations we use today. Yes, it's possible someone somewhere could produce a corrupted version of the scriptures. As a matter of fact, it's been done by the Jehovah's Witnesses (most noticably). It's called the "New World Translation". However, the existence of that translation doesn't effect the accuracy of the KJV, NASB, or NIV one iota.
The question "What does the Quran say about the Bible" sounds like a lead-in to an attack on the veracity of the Bible. However, let's consider the following from the Quran from Christian Apologetics Research Ministry:
End of CARM article....
Alright then, what are we to believe about the scriptures...and do we believe all of it? Quite simple. The Bible is God's Word. We believe all of it. And by the way, we don't need the Quran to tell us we can believe it. It testifies on it's own to be true, and no, that is not a circular argument.
If a Muslim wants to tell you that the Bible is "corrupted", then they are at odds with the Quran. If they aren't accurate, they have to have been wrong when they were written, in which case Mohammed and the Quran are both wrong for affirming 'The Book"!
So not only is it true that this Islamic dog "doesn't hunt", it doesn't even have teeth!
Next time, we'll take a look at the second comment submitted to this blog which would raise questions about the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection as well as the trinity. And of course, who knows? We just might get another comment from Oman.
We can only hope!
-------------
Update (7/11/09). Here's a link to part two, which I added not long after this article.
The comments are pro-Qur'an, anti Bible. Now, because these people are most likely simply trying to inundate the blogosphere with Koranic error, I don't take it personally. And if I'm right, they probably won't even check back to see if their comments are posted.
Still, because of the gravity of the issue, I thought it might be timely as well as wise to at least publish what they had to say and why it doesn't work. After all, if they put their ideas out there, they should be willing to have them put up to scrutiny.
Both comments (neither of which I posted) were basically an advertisement for a pro-Islamic site. As far as I can tell, it isn't a new site and as a matter of fact, I think I've seen it out there before.
So without further ado, I'll post their comments:
From "ha" in Masqat Oman:
"What are we supposed to believe about the Holy Bible? Is it still the same? Do we believe everything in it? What does Quran say about the Bible?" (link eliminated)
From "Islam", also from Masqat Oman:
"Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
"Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")
All this & more - internets site to compare İslam & Christianity: (link eliminated)"
The first comment asks four questions:
1. "What are we supposed to believe about the Holy Bible?"
2. "Is it still the same?"
3. "Do we believe everything in it?"
4. "What does Quran say about the Bible?"
The first and third are kind of related, the second and fourth kind of stand out more. I'll address those first.
One charge that Muslims make about the Bible is that it has been corrupted. Somewhere along the line, they would argue, someone got hold of all the Bibles and changed them. They would say, therefore, that what we have now is not accurate. This is not a new argument. I've heard it from atheists, liberal theologians before hearing it from Muslims. So, nothing new here.
What they, as others, have missed is that we know what we have has not been changed. The old "transmission error" argument was very popular until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, someone argues that someone altered the text of a bible somewhere? What difference does that make? We have manuscripts that validate the translations we have today. As a matter of fact, by the time you consider all the manuscripts and fragments, we have close to 24,000 manuscripts to verify the accuracy of the English translations we use today. Yes, it's possible someone somewhere could produce a corrupted version of the scriptures. As a matter of fact, it's been done by the Jehovah's Witnesses (most noticably). It's called the "New World Translation". However, the existence of that translation doesn't effect the accuracy of the KJV, NASB, or NIV one iota.
The question "What does the Quran say about the Bible" sounds like a lead-in to an attack on the veracity of the Bible. However, let's consider the following from the Quran from Christian Apologetics Research Ministry:
The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be acording to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel wereall given by God.
- TORAH - "We gave Moses the Book and followed him
up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87). - PSALMS - "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it
to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham,
Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and
solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). - GOSPEL - "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sentdown the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We
sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).
- "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
- "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).
- "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).
When Muhammed (570 - 632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time, the Bible which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is "When and where was the Bible corrupted, since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"
__________________
The Quranic quotes used in this paper can be found online at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/."
End of CARM article....
Alright then, what are we to believe about the scriptures...and do we believe all of it? Quite simple. The Bible is God's Word. We believe all of it. And by the way, we don't need the Quran to tell us we can believe it. It testifies on it's own to be true, and no, that is not a circular argument.
If a Muslim wants to tell you that the Bible is "corrupted", then they are at odds with the Quran. If they aren't accurate, they have to have been wrong when they were written, in which case Mohammed and the Quran are both wrong for affirming 'The Book"!
So not only is it true that this Islamic dog "doesn't hunt", it doesn't even have teeth!
Next time, we'll take a look at the second comment submitted to this blog which would raise questions about the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection as well as the trinity. And of course, who knows? We just might get another comment from Oman.
We can only hope!
-------------
Update (7/11/09). Here's a link to part two, which I added not long after this article.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Islam, Judaism, Warrenism & Emergentism Under One Roof
From Watcher's Lamp:
"Rick Warren continues to share his religious consumerism marketing techniques with the members of the Union for Reform Judaism...
From the Christian Post: Rick Warren Counsels Jews on Recruiting Congregants
With the holiday season in mind, Warren urged clergy to take advantage of crowded events to publicize other programs so people can get involved in the community through smaller groups. “There are some principles that apply regardless of our faith, if it’s Jewish or Christian,” he said at the convention.
Other guests at the conference included the Emergent leader Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.
Editor's note: What's wrong with this picture? Hello Rick, Can you spell ecumenism? Can you spell marketing? Can you spell heresy?"
Read the original here.
I have only one question for anyone who really supports Rick Warren: If you are really a Christian, why would you ever want to help other religions attract people to a lie?
"Rick Warren continues to share his religious consumerism marketing techniques with the members of the Union for Reform Judaism...
From the Christian Post: Rick Warren Counsels Jews on Recruiting Congregants
With the holiday season in mind, Warren urged clergy to take advantage of crowded events to publicize other programs so people can get involved in the community through smaller groups. “There are some principles that apply regardless of our faith, if it’s Jewish or Christian,” he said at the convention.
Other guests at the conference included the Emergent leader Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.
Editor's note: What's wrong with this picture? Hello Rick, Can you spell ecumenism? Can you spell marketing? Can you spell heresy?"
Read the original here.
I have only one question for anyone who really supports Rick Warren: If you are really a Christian, why would you ever want to help other religions attract people to a lie?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
