Reply to tektonics by Mohamed Ghounem
Dear tektonics, thank you for reviewing my book, it was an honor to have someone with your scholarly information give a well written critique. Now if you allow me the pleasure, I shall return the favor:
Ghounem's approach in attacking the Bible
As stated in the introduction, this book shows how the Quran helps, not attacks the Bible. The Quran is the Divine commentary of the Bible.
Ghounem makes much of divergences in parallel accounts in the Bible of the same event as well as alleged contradictions and errors (e.g. historical, scientific, etc.), but such exist in the Qur'an as well (See here and here).
This is a frequent phrase throughout this analyzation, and in most cases, it bares a striking resemblance to a red herring. If I may clarify, the majority of the issues in the English translation of the Quran are linguistic, explained clearly with an Arabic/English dictionary. In the mid 90's when I often debated Jochen Katz (the compiler of that list (before he quit)), I asked him out of religious integrity, to name that site "Contradictions in the English translation of the Quran". He refused.
None the less, this is one of the Divine aspects of the Quran, God has kept it in it's pure language, Arabic. This is one of the main reasons why the Quran helps the Bible. The Bible lacks the linguistic pillar of support because the Aramaic language is extinct. Furthermore, Christians already accept the Bible in all languages as divine, so if you approached any Christian and told them that only the Russian Bible is divine, they would call you a heretic.
The point to pressing this fact is to explain that the Quran simply fulfils what the Bible lacks: a stable means of communication. While the English translation of the Quran can be questioned, the Arabic Quran has stood the test of time, while a new Bible edition/version is made every year as tectonic translation shifts are still trying to settle millenniums later, over 300 words in the new Bibles are being translated differently from previous Bibles, and counting. This rests on the simple acceptance of authenticity, while Christians accept the Bible in English, French, Spanish, etc.. as authentic, the Muslims only accept the Quran in Arabic as authentic. Immediately we see a serious disadvantage for the Bible, because no book can be perfectly translated. Therefore God blessed the Bible followers by sending another original "Reading" (Quran in Arabic) since the original Bible has been lost in translation after translation, so the Bible followers no longer had to hang their eternal salvation on one of the hundreds of mistranslated Bible words. Monotheists now have a defense against skeptics, they can validly point to word translations, while Bible followers are void of this defense because their English Bibles are considered the exact words of God.
The Qur'an and the Bible were each written centuries ago and in milieus consisting of different cultural, social, and literary norms and standards than what we often find today.
While one may to label the Bible as outdated, temporary, and incompatible with today's secularist views, I believe the Quran offers a tranquil lifestyle compatible with any century.
Demonstrate that the issues are often much more complex than what Ghounem would have the reader believe with his inadequate treatments of such matters.
The issues are rather simple according to the Bible itself "For God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corithians 14:33), if something is too complex (confusing) to be easily explained, then it's not from God.
In the "Excuse" subsections, the reader is given (usually) a very brief statement as to how Christians reconcile the problematic passage(s) (sometimes "excuses" are said to be "not available" for the alleged problems).
I made a very sincere effort both on and off line to search for an excuse for every Bible problem I found which related to the Quran, the purpose was to offer a first time ever in the history of literature, a reply to the list of responses given for Bible blemishes. The Bible apologetics have in general, gone unchallenged point by point before this book.
In some cases, Ghounem will list more than one way in which apologists supposedly reconcile the alleged problems, but this subsection comprises, at most, in each case, a few sentences of writing.
In many cases more than just a few sentences, and in some cases, the apologetics themselves only offer one sentence response, yet for the first book ever to offer the Biblicists stance on each issue, I sense a tone of unappreciativeness. This book offers a road map that many Bible readers may travel, rather than going into atheism once they realize on their own that the Christian apologetics are just offering a smoke screen, they can remain on the straight path of God through the Quran.
For somebody that has supposedly placed 6 years of research into this book, the Bibliography appears to be rather scant, not only in terms of quantity, but also quality.
One only needs the Bible and the Quran to complete the book, yet nearly 40 books (some nearly a thousand pages each) and half a dozen mega websites were used, along with my own previous works. Most of the research efforts and costs were those trying to find answers to Bible flaws, nearly every apologetic site on the net was visited, with the disappointment to find that most just copied each other, so purchases from barnes and noble and amazon had to be made, including Geisler's (whom I spoke to in person) entire apologetic library on CD-Rom (expensive, but worth it).
Unfortunately, besides the admittedly good variety of "problem solving" books used by Ghounem, the good scholarly sources regarding Christianity and/or the Bible, in Ghounem's Bibliography, appear to be but few.
A few? incase one is unfamiliar with Geisler's apologetic library, Geisler lists nearly every apologetic in history as reference to his attempts to solve Bible problems, thus Geisler is a mall of apologetics, I'm surprised the quantity and quality of my choices of Christian defenders are criticized, since Geisler is the original author of the answering-Islam site often referenced here.
There is also a methodological flaw in Ghounem's thesis from the very start. Sam Shamoun and company have collected an immense amount of data supporting the assertion that the Qur'an, contrary to what most Muslims claim, actually *endorses* the Bible rather than to claim that the written texts have been corrupted. See the following resource page:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html
The Quran confirms the Truth in the Bible and dispels the myths in the Bible, of the million words in the Bible, some are true and some are false (distorted, deleted, or mistranslated). It is folly to claim the Quran supports all of the Bible since the Quran itself states:
"People of the Book! Our Messenger has come to you, making clear to you many things you have been concealing of the Book and forgive you much. A light has come to you from Allah and a glorious Book, with which He will guide whoever follows His pleasure in the way of peace, and brings them forth from darkness into the light by His will." (Quran 5:15-16)
Yet some Christians, even if mountains are moved in front of them, have hearts full of denial, so if one is insistent that the Quran endorses the Bible, then one would have to accept what the Bible says about itself;
". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." (Jeremiah 23:36)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8)
" And the Lord said to me: "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds." (Jeremiah 14:14)
Even Jesus admits the Scribes omitted things from the Bible;
" Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. " (Matthew 23:23) more here.
So if one is to persist that the Quran endorses the Bible, and the Bible calls itself distorted, then we are back to square one where the Quran came to help the Bible.
This is the first time I've heard a skeptic deny that context is important
I was simply emphasizing that the content excuse does not get a free ride here, and if it is used, it will be rightly scrutinized.
We are also told that "copyist error" is an invalid excuse because, by making such an appeal, we are admitting that our Bibles today have errors, and this makes it no longer a divine book. It might help Ghounem to consider JPH's article related to this topic.
Thank you for the reference, although that link tells the reader to subdue their examination of the Bible to B.C. levels, and don't look at the Bible as a modern day person with modern day knowledge, then the writer goes on to say Christians don't even need the Bible, interesting. I'm trying to teach acceptance rather than denial, but thanks anyway from the link.
if Ghounem persists in demanding that all copies of the Bible be 100% error-free for it to maintain its authenticity, he is free to think that way, but this criterion also disqualifies the Qur'an from being authentic since its history is certainly not free of textual variations.
Here is one of many examples where the topic is changed from discussing excuses and rebuttals on the Bible, over to the Quran as a diversion. Yet as stated in the beginning, such a comparison only shows how the Quran towers in truth above the Bible, the punctuation differences in the Quran are minuscule compared to the entire chapter differences in the Protestant Vs. Catholic Bibles. More on the Quran's textual integrity here. It's simply common sense that one document (the Bible) which took millenniums to compile, would not be as textually authentic as a document (the Quran) which took decades to compile.
We are next told that the "excuse" of claiming that "Later Scripture replaces Previous Scripture" is also invalid. We certainly can agree with Ghounem in theory, but new revelations must be in harmony with previous revelations, and even Muslims implicitly admit that the Qur'an is not in harmony with previous revelations by constantly resorting to the groundless claim that the Bible has been corrupted.
As already noted, the Bible itself says it's corrupted, thus the Quran is in harmony with what the Bible says about itself. Regarding the laws in stone (the 10 commandments), those are found in the Quran, as well as Islam's continuation with Abraham's everlasting covenant of circumcision, yet anything concrete or everlasting is not found in Christianity.
Moreover, this is a rather shocking complaint by Ghounem since it could be applied much more forcefully to the Qur'an. There are passages in the Qur'an that were revealed that are said to supersede previous passages in the same Qur'an (and the Qur'an was only revealed over a 23 year time span this is a well-known and controversial issue in Islam known as Abrogation.
The Quran lists a sequence of events, while the Bible goes from first gear to fifth gear, causing the reader's faith to stall, the Bible goes from obeying the laws to throwing away the bulk of the laws. Now there are Christian preachers who promote homosexuality, that is the true abrogation. Here is the answers to the claims of Quranic abrogation.
The apologetic "excuse" that certain words are to be understood figuratively rather than literally is scoffed at, This criticism in some cases may be warranted. OTOH, there are times when a metaphorical explanation is perfectly acceptable, such as when considering passages in a book rich in poetry and/or apocalyptic imagery.
It's simply specified that not any word can be used presumed figurative when all other excuses are exhausted as ample examples are provided.
Ghounem also scoffs at the "excuse" of claiming an error in translation in order to explain a Biblical problem. Actually, I'm surprised that Ghounem could find ANY knowledgeable Christian apologists that would make this claim. Similar to the issue of the copyist errors, very few, if any, knowledgeable Christians would claim that the translations are inerrant, and that is certainly not our position.
Exactly, most Christian scholars admit the Bible has translation and copyist mistakes, that they follow a book full of errors, since the topic is logically closed at this point, (most people at this time would accept Islam), but since some Christians have not yet become Muslim, then the teaching continues. Reiterating the difference between the Bible and Quran, Muslims do not say our Quran is full of translation errors because the one we recite and use in our prayers is not a translation. If you want to hold the position that your divine book is not full of translation mistakes, then accept the Quran as your guide to Eternal life.
As far as the Qur'an is concerned, the only way that the majority of Muslims in the world (that do not speak Arabic) can understand what is in it is through a translation.
All Muslims in the world pray in Arabic, and the prayers are very easy to understand, 70% of Muslims are non-Arabs and some of those non-Arabs know Arabic better than some Arabs.
Ghounem is free to deny the "authenticity" of translations, but speaking philosophically for a moment, I personally find it more sound to believe that God would prefer our reading doctrinally sound, yet otherwise imperfect translations, than for most of His followers to not have any idea what they read when "reading" and reciting His written word.
Philosophically, if that were true, then God would have sent an angel to give us a message directly to a prophet in every language, instead, the Arabic language is used for it's power and simplicity. One language is also used so that if two revelations were given simultaneously in two different languages, one does not claim superiority over the other, but in our case, one supersedes the other because one is centuries newer than the older. Furthermore, as millions of people every year take the time and effort to learn the language of money (English), why wouldn't someone have the faith to use our God given brains to learn the language of Heaven (Arabic) as millions also learn every year.
Moving on to some of the specific problems in the book, Ghounem complains in chapter 1 about the Bible's use of anthropomorphic and/or metaphorical language, suggesting that the Bible REALLY is telling us that God needs rest (Gen. 2:2), that He sleeps (Psalm 78:65), and that He makes mistakes (Gen. 6:6-7). Of course, if Ghounem wishes to insist that these be taken literally, he has a problem since the Qur'an also uses anthropomorphic language to describe God (See the beginning of this article).
Instead of addressing the flaws of God in the Bible needing to rest after creating the universe, another red herring attempt is made to an article using various mistranslated words like "forget" instead of "forsake", as when Jesus asked his Creator on the cross why He had forsaken him.
Ghounem also states that God must need food since in Gen. 18:1-8, in one of the numerous OT theophanies, God consumes food alongside Abraham. It is stretching it to conclude, based on this one incident, particularly since this is a theophany, that God literally needed the food. This is especially the case since the Bible did not say that God literally needed it anymore than Jesus would have needed the fish that he consumed after his resurrection from the dead.
Any theological book reviewer would have a more credible judgment if they had a greater knowledge of the Bible. According to the Bible, the claimed tri-une God as a theophany, was so hungry that he killed a fig tree because it did not give him food out of season;
"He (Jesus) hungered. And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find anything thereon: and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And He answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward forever. And His disciples heard it. And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig-tree withered away from the roots." (Mark 11:12-14, 20).
In chapter 2, the Bible is derided for attributing various sins to prophets, specifically Moses, Aaron, and David. Qur'anic verses are then cited to confirm that the various sins discussed in the Bible concerning these men are either not mentioned, or are "corrected," by the Qur'an. In addition, the common Muslim claim that all prophets were sinless is contradictory to some of the material written about them from early authoritative Muslim sources (See (1); (2); (3)).
Here we see a new technique added to the red herring (smoke screen), an appeal to authority (Ad Verecundiam). What the reviewer overlooks is that some of these early Muslim authorities were converts to Islam from Jewish and Christian backgrounds, so their opinions may carry the dogma of their former notions, but that in no way changes what the Quran states. So what an authority claims about the Quran or Bible does not change what the Quran and Bible plainly state.
Ghounem complains in one place that Cain was not punished for the killing of Abel. He must have either overlooked Gen. 4:10-12 or thought capital punishment should have been inflicted on him, as the apologetic "excuse" listed is that God had not yet established capital punishment.
Being sent to travel the earth is a contradictory law from "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." as specified in Exodus. Cain was not punished as others who committed murder were punished (Numbers 35:17).
The chapter ends with a couple of appeals to various passages in the Bible that Ghounem thinks foretell the coming of Muhammad (John 16:12-13 and Isaiah 29:12). These and other such claims have been debunked here, here, and here.
Many of the Bible passages predicting Muhammad use dual meaning words, if some Christians want to accept the meanings that don't point to what over a billion people accept as a prophet, then that is their free choice. I believe it is a fork in the road that God gives the traveler a chance to remain closed minded or to follow the signs.
In the next chapter, Ghounem attempts to demonstrate that the Qur'an is compatible with modern science whereas the Bible is often not compatible with it. Some "contradictions" are appealed to as well, such as a couple in the two creation narratives.
That link says the Bible contradictions are due to translation errors, one on the use of the Hebrew word Toledot and another error is on the verb usage in G2:19 which the New international version of the Bible tries to fix while other Bibles still use other errant verb usage. We're back to where we started in saying the Bible has translation errors while the Quran rescues the Bible from these communication flaws.
Whether or not Biblical Cosmology truly supports such assertions is one matter
That link states; “But that particular translation has a few bugs in it.” And “Thus some translations will now say that Jerusalem is "most important" rather than using words which indicate a geographic connotation.” Thus more translation excuses.
Ghounem may be surprised by the exegeses of classical Muslim scholars regarding what the Qur'an actually teaches about such things as well (See (1) and (2)).
Again an Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) and again, many Christian and Jewish converts to Islam back then believed the earth was flat, which was a common notion based on the Bible up to the days Columbus discovered America. What authorities say does not change the physical text of either Scriptures.
We are told in another chapter that the Qur'an does not teach a global flood, unlike in the Bible, and that this is more in harmony with the scientific evidence as well. There are, however, quite a bit of relevant books, articles, and other literature from scientists of Christian persuasion that argue that the Bible does indeed teach a local flood rather than a global one and that the days of creation are to be understood as long periods of time rather than literal days (i.e. Old Earth Creationists; See this website). OTOH, there are scientists of Christian persuasion that argue that the Bible does indeed teach a global flood and a literal 6 days of creation, and propound scientific evidence supporting their assertions (i.e. Young Earth Creationists; See this website). Our purpose here is not to endorse one of these particular positions over the other, but merely to demonstrate that Ghounem has made some gross oversimplifications in his short discussions of these matters.
A small sect of Christians believe the Bible teaches a local flood, I am not going to list the opinions of every single sect of Christianity, I chose the position held by the majority of Christians, Jews and what the Bible plainly says “global flood” Genesis 6:17. Likewise, regarding homosexuality, a small sect of Christians believe the Bible condones two men relationships, does that mean the topic of homosexuality in the Bible is complicated? Only if the minority wants it to be, but to 99% of the Bible readers, it is clearly forbidden. So in showing how the Quran helps the Bible, I choose the Biblically supported and majority held view points every time, there are minority opposing view points to everything, yet that is irrelevant to the book because the book aims to help the masses. Therefore it’s not a matter of over simplifying topics, it’s instead a logical position based on what the Bible actually says and how almost all Jews and Christians overwhelmingly acknowledge what is said.
As far as what the Qur'an actually teaches, there is ample data once again from classical Qur'anic scholars to cast significant doubt upon Ghounem's Qur'anic exegeses regarding these issues (See Global or Local Flood? and The Days of Creation).
I had a nice discussion here with Denis Giron on this topic which dispels what Global flood advocates try to suggest of the Quran.
The claim that the Qur'an forcasts modern scientific findings is perhaps the most popular argument made by Muslim apologists in favor of the divine inspiration of the Qur'an. It is often said, for instance, that the Qur'an's teachings on Embryology match what has been discovered recently by modern science. Ghounem discusses this as well. Most of these issues have been substantially scrutinized here.
The “translation” of the Quran has been examined, and any linguistic questions have been answered completely.
In Chapter 4, Ghounem argues that various laws and/or commandments in the Bible are either contradictory to each other or "better versions" are to be found in the Qur'an. Many, perhaps all, of the "contradictions" can be reconciled simply by considering the textual and/or historical contexts of the verses in question.
In other words, the Bible is not a modern day guide? The teachings within were good and right for the people back then but are not right for us now? Some Christians and most of the Jews would have some contention with this position.
One quick example is an alleged contradiction in the Bible regarding whether marriage is to be encouraged (e.g. Gen. 2:18-24 and I Timothy 4:1-5) or discouraged (e.g. I Corinthians 7:8) [See here].
That link amusingly says that Paul, thinking the world was going to come to an end, made his statement under duress, and that the passage would sound better if the word “woman” was translated into “wife” since both are the same word in Greek. So Paul who was supposed to be divinely inspired was wrong about the future and the Bible translators who were also supposed to be inspired were wrong about the translation, that explains it. Got Quran?
We are told, because of Ezekiel 20:24-26, that God gave laws as a form of punishment (See here).
That link reiterates my position, that certain laws are a form of discipline, and once the Quran is followed, the unnecessary laws are removed.
We are told that there is a contradiction between Gen.1:29-30 and 9:3 as to whether consuming meat is allowable. The standard apologetic "excuse" given, which is the one in which we agree, is that the latter command supersedes the former. Ghounem states that this would be acceptable if Paul hadn't claimed later that it was wrong to eat meat in Romans 14:21. However, Paul is most certainly not forbidding the consumption of meat, as can be seen earlier in that same chapter (Rom.14:4; see also I Timothy 4:1-4!). The context of this verse is in a chapter where Paul speaks of refraining from activities in the presence of those where such activities will provide a stumblingblock for them (in this case that would mean, for example, a meat consumer serving up lamb chops to his/her vegetarian guest).
In other words, this is one of the many instances of Paul pretending to someone he’s not inorder to deceive his audience, here is a confession of Paul lying about his beliefs to trick others;
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law” 1 Corinthians 9:20
So whether Paul forbid or allowed meat, forbid or allowed circumcision, forbid or allowed marriage, is all up for debate because Paul admittingly played both sides of the fence.
We are told that the Bible commands that apostates be put to death based on Ezekiel 18:24 and Hebrews 10:26-29. Of course, these passages speak of death in a spiritual sense, and I'd be surprised if Ghounem could come up with a single Biblical scholar that would support his interpretation of these particular verses.
I may be hard pressed to find a Christian evangelist to admit to the meaning being of one of a physical death, while on the other hand, it would be very easy to find a Jewish scholar to confirm it means a physical death.
It is also somewhat surprising that Ghounem would go this route since there are commands to put apostates to death in early authoritative Islamic literature. For more info. see this page.
Both early followers of both Scriptures “burned people at the stake”, but after the ashes have blown away, we find that the Bible supported those grotesque actions while the Quran does not.
We are told that Christians practiced polygamy for centuries after Jesus, and that it was not outlawed until the 19th century, and some Christian sects practice this even today. No evidence for any of these assertions is given
The book is not meant to be a world history of polygamy, but if one needs more details on the history of polygamy in Christianity and modern day Bible following polygamists, one can visit a number of Christian pro-polygamy sites across the internet.
the only Christian sect I personally know of that allows polygamy would be Mormonism, which is considered by most to be outside of orthodox Christianity.
All Christians are individuals, no matter what sect they adhere to, their marital preference is a matter of personal taste.
To give a few examples from the chapter on history, we are asked, if Adam was to die after eating from the forbidden tree, why he lived for another 930 years (See here)
This link uses the same excuse my book documents "Adam died a spiritual death", infact, my book includes another excuse not found in this link "Adam died a slow death" So it appears that I use more Bible apologetic excuses than this review suggests I use. As the rebuttal to this excuse in the book states, Adam still had spiritual life and blessings with God, thus, did not spiritually die. It appears that the time was not taken to read the rebuttals before writing this review, right?
The chapter on women starts out in the Garden of Eden, where, according to Ghounem, "the root of negative stereotyping towards women" is revealed because Adam blamed Eve when questioned regarding the consumption of the forbidden fruit. This is an odd complaint in light of the fact that all 3 (including the serpent) are rebuked and punished by God
All three were punished, but it was the woman in the Bible who was blamed the most and punished the most.
which brings us to the next complaint that asks why Adam and Eve are not equally punished. Ghounem bases this on Gen. 3:16, where, he states that there are four curses bestowed upon Eve (even though there are really only 1 or 2 at the most; i.e. sorrow in bearing children and having Adam "rule over her"), and that the curses bestowed on Adam in Gen.3:17-19 indirectly punish Eve as well. Kaiser and Davids' "Hard Sayings of the Bible" contains a great commentary on both "curses" bestowed upon Eve. Although Ghounem lists this book in his Bibliography, he does not interact with any of their material on this.
There are still numerically more curses on Eve then on Adam, and after looking in the HSB again, I still don't see anything sufficient to warrant an excuse for the unbalanced punishments, what is the page number(s)?
We are told that it is a "pathetic excuse for cutting a woman's hand off," as is commanded in Deut. 25:11-12, just because a woman injures a man's genitals to where he can no longer have children.
Nothing in this commandment mentions how hard the hit is or whether the man can still have children, this is an exaggeration of the crime in an attempt to justify the punishment.
This is another of many places that Ghounem has not done his homework, as JPH demonstrates
It appears that this JPH individual has the same wild fantasies of a weight lifting woman who is able to rip through the pants of a man and rip off this attackers genitals or crush them into sand. Otherwise, grabbing an attacker by the private parts as any doctor would testify, would not render the attacker sterile.
Furthermore, by the time the woman took a few seconds to get a good grip, the attacker would have plenty of time to push her away. Therefore, since the likely hood of sterilization is nearly impossible, the excuse of dieing without having heirs to support you as JPH pleads to, is invalid. On the other hand, the chance of a woman dying from having her hand cut off (shock or blood loss) is much more likely.
Not surprisingly, however, such controversial topics surrounding the value of women in Islam are not touched upon by the author.
Women in the Quran have rights that are still not allowed in the Bible (i.e. inheritance, etc..)
The Qur'an also states that men are superior to women and that men can *beat* their wives because of disobedience (S. 4:34).
There is actually a sequence of events that must take place before the man is allowed to "beat" his wife, second, the beating is taught in hadith as a light gesture like tap with a tooth brush like stick, third, we are taught to be like prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who never beat any of his wives, more on this verse here.
the reader can hopefully see from this how easily Ghounem's prooftext-approach could be turned around in order to denigrate the Qur'an as well.
On the contrary, all that has been shown is that the Quran can easily be explained, while fantasies of a kung fu fighting, body part snatching woman would have to be conjured to try explaining the Bible (perhaps Tarantino's "kill bill" was watched one to many times).
We move on to the topic of Jesus in chapter 7. It starts off with a couple of common "contradictions," such as whether or not Jesus healed two blind men or one blind man on the way to Jericho. JPH has an article on the number of demoniacs
First, this does not touch the error of one or two blind men, second, the excuse for the demoniacs is "second guy didn't do much, or as much", does this excuse the fact that Matthew does not match the other Gospels? If the second demoniac did not do much, then how would it have been known that he was a demoniac? Common sense would delineate that some action must have taken place on the part of the second demoniac for Matthew to label him as a demoniac.
It is asked why Mark states that the two thieves reviled Jesus (15:32) whereas Luke records one defending him (Luke 23:39-42). Ghounem then alludes to Matt. 27:54 and Luke 23:47, which details the centurion's confession that Jesus was innocent and truly was the Son of God. In other words, Ghounem thinks that because some confessions are recorded in the Gospels that all such confessions/repentances were detailed by the Gospel authors
I'm not saying that every confession in the Bible was supposed to be recorded, I'm only saying that at this most important moment in the Gospel, where the audience below is hanging on every word being said at this deciding moment, the moment where Jesus could prove his innocence, one gospel records the presumed last words of his friend and Messiah while others don't.
Ghounem is clearly taking an extreme conflict-approach to the texts, yet one that is prodigiously unwarranted, and one that the Qur'an could certainly not withstand.
Actually, it's the common sense approach, and the Quran is the only one of the two that withstands the study.
Up next is the chapter on the Trinity, and among the problems with Ghounem's approach to this, we discover that his understanding of this doctrine is badly flawed. In at least a couple of places in his book, not necessarily in this particular chapter, it appears that Ghounem has confused the orthodox understanding of the Trinity with the heresy known as Modalism.
On the topic of Trinity, there are more than just two schools of thought, in fact, around the world, Christians follow(ed) nearly a dozen additional contradicting forms of trinity applying different standards and levels of divinity to Jesus; Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Docetism, Donatism, Dualism, Ebionism, Eutychianism, Iconoclasm, Macedonianism, Manichaeism, Marcionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Patripassianism, Pelagianism, Quietism, Sebellianism, Socinianism. Of course the follower of each type of trinity will call the follower of the other type of trinity a heretic.
Each of these trinities are expir(ed)ing one after the other because none can solve the confusion of a tri-une god. The reality is that one person can be three people (a uncle can also be a cousin and a nephew), but if one of the three die, then all three die, thus people don't want a conflicting God, therefore Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because the Quran clarifies that Jesus was as great as all the other divinely led Prophets, someone empowered, blessed and one with God in mission, but not God Himself.
Suffice it to say that these problems that Ghounem has conjured up disappear once one grasps the proper Biblical understanding of Christ and the Trinity rather than his Modalistic strawman. Some relevant material regarding the true orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity can be found in the following links: (1); (2); (3); (4).
JPH in the first link makes the claim that Jesus was the self made "wisdom" of God, this is an odd assertion since Jesus in the Gospel was not wise enough to know when the Day of Judgment would be (Mark 13:32) or why God had forsaken him on the cross (Matt. 27:46) or dozens of other issues that Jesus was not Omniscient about.
The short chapter entitled "Afterlife," starts out by claiming that there are multiple ways found in the Bible of removing sins (e.g. charity and incense), contrary to the Christian claim that blood is the only way in which atonement is made. This assertion is false as we show here.
This link uses an exact phrase fallacy. The two sentences "flour will make atonement" and "flour will be a sin offering" both have the same meaning as understood by Jews, yet the link insists on evangelical terminology. Because the phrase sin offering instead of atonement is used, it's assumed an invalid way to be forgiven. Perhaps a Bible dictionary would explain that both mean purifying.
(Revelation 14:3-4) I wonder if Ghounem believes that other such players in the book of Revelation like the 7-headed dragon and the woman that stands on the moon and is clothed with the sun are meant to be taken literally as well.
Most Jews and many Christians believe the unmarried boys passage is literal.
We finally reach the closing chapter entitled "Additional Ways," which houses the last 10 sections of the book. Another "contradiction" is mentioned in that, while several passages in the Bible state that God loves sinners, in Hosea 9:15 it is said that God does not love sinners. This is where an understanding of the Biblical word for hate would have been helpful to Ghounem.
Rather than claiming that hate is not literally the opposite of love as this link alleges, perhaps a closer look at (Hosea 9:15) would reveal the Bible specifically states that love for the sinners would be severed; "I will love them no more". Perhaps a link explaining how "love" in the Bible is not literally the opposite of hate would is in order.
If Ghounem and others want to do some relevant homework in this area, they might want to educate themselves on the writings of such scholars as Richard Baukham, Craig Blomberg, Raymond Brown, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, James D.G. Dunn, R.T. France, Gary Habermas, Larry Hurtado, Bruce Metzger(!), Ben Witherington, and N.T. Wright, the likes of which are notably absent from Ghounem's resource list.
Baukham focuses on politics, Brown's "101 Questions and Answers" was inadequate, W.L. Craig and Hurtado are being used by me for an upcoming book: "101 Bible Quotes on Christ Disproving Trinity", Blomberg, Carson, Dunn, France, Habermas, Metzger, Witherinton, and Wright were all used by me indirectly because they are all referenced by Dr. Norman Geisler. Thus the Geisler's Apologetic's library on CD-Rom was expensive but worth it because it encompasses the top authors on Bible errors (I suppose we can now add JPH as one replied to as well).
Postscript: For those interested in a good book on "comparative religion" in regards to Christianity and Islam, the best one that I'm personally aware of would probably be a book by Dr. William Campbell entitled "The Qur'an and Bible in the Light of History & Science."
Well, after reading the reply to this review, I pray that you find the courage to move forward to Islam and you find that the book "200+ Ways the Quran Corrects (Helps) the Bible" is the best guide to assist you in your conversion.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem