2nd Reply to tektonics
Dear Tektonics, thank you again for the observations, this time I’m even more honored because the reviewers also include esteemed writers such as Jochen Katz, Sam Shamon and JP Holding, which is as exciting as being reviewed by the board of the New York Times.
Although I slightly feel ganged up on, the challenge is appreciated, I pray to Allah to help these gentlemen understand the clarification I will now give:
Ghounem compresses apologetic arguments that are often well-detailed into summaries comprised of one to a few sentences. The problem with this approach is that the apologetic presentations being summarized are often too detailed for such short compressions to provide an adequate representation of the argument(s) allegedly being refuted.
There are legal and practical reasons for paraphrasing;
Legal: if I copied the majority of an excuse by a Biblicist, I could be liable to copyright infringement since they were from copyrighted books.
Practical: there is no reason to go into detail when the heart of the Biblicist excuse is a mistranslation or copyist error or scribble error. Many of the human mistakes alluded to by Christian apologetics are compressed because the scope of my book does not go into why those human mistakes happened, it simply points to those mistakes being acknowledged.
For example, if a Christian apologetic says the mistranslation happened because the Bible scribe had an outdated Greek-English dictionary that day, my book is not going to expand the page count by 1,000 pages to include all that, if the Christian excuse is mistranslation, then I’m just going to list it as such. I’m not going to give an explanation for the explanation for the mistake, people’s eternal Salvation is at stake, so what justice would I be doing by reiterating pity for mistakes?
If a Christian apologetic says a copyist error happened because the scribe was hit on the head that day or under some sort of duress, and did not correctly recall the verbal saying he was supposed to write down, I’m not going to include all that. There’s no reason to prolong the agony of a Bible mistake, thus many Biblicist excuses can be summed up in a few sentences. I’m not going to reanimate the mental fog some scribe may have felt for a particular passage because that passes the borderline between accession of a mistake into having (in the words of the Rolling Stones) “Sympathy for the Devil”.
I’m writing for a broader audience than just the sympathetic Christians; the Muslims, atheists and even Hindus want something concise and to the point. I include the core of the Christian excuses (with passage numbers), which is something I have not seen others do to this extent.
So when the reviewer complains that I sometimes compress the Christian excuse into one sentence, it’s because it only takes one sentence to say “translation error” or “copyist error” or “scribble error”.
This will serve to at least give the reader an idea of the level of scholarship that is found in Ghounem's book.
Being scholarly does not mean writing pages and pages of smoke screens, Einstein wrote E=mc² and was considered one of the greatest scholars of our time. I included the nucleus of the Christian excuses along with the passages when they were offered. In other words, I presented the equation of their excuses and the sum of their excuses, but the book is not a romance novel to offer compassion as to why they came up with those totals. I understand that the Bible scribes made some honest unintentional mistakes, but the explanation stops there, expanding the excuse any further does not make it any less of a mistake.
Jochen: Who quit what? I may have quit talking to Ghounem, because it was a waste of time
Your not still bitter are you? Germany got over WWII, so I presume you’ve gotten over our debates ;-)
Jochen: I didn't quit anything else. Maybe he thinks I am gone because I am no longer active on the SRI newsgroup?
Rumor was that you packed up and moved back to Germany, since you weren’t the webmaster for answering-Islam.org anymore and disappeared from the half dozen forums and newsgroups I used to see you in, I presumed the rumor was true. When I said you quit, the context of course was “quit debating Muslims”. Besides doing this cameo, where else do you write now? Since that Christian forum we frequented also quit and closed down, it was only natural to think you’ve done the same.
Jochen; Also, we have a number of Arabs who proofread and contribute to this section. It is NOT about the English, it is about the MEANING of certain quranic passages that contradict each other.
Realistically, it’s about accepting the dual meaning that suits you and dismissing the possibility of the other dual meaning.
Jochen; The section found at the address www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/, and titled "Contradictions in the Qur'an", is about contradiction in the MEANING of the (Arabic) Quran.
I see this point is still going over your head, you can’t criticize the meaning of a Divine book when your using the human made translation to do so, and if you are using the translation, then out of religious integrity, you need to specify that your using the translation. For example, if I’m critiquing the Spanish translation of a book by William Shakespeare, I would be dishonest if I pretended I was writing about the original English version of his book and not specify it was the Spanish translation I was reviewing. Translations diminish the poetry, harmony, and depth, let alone full contextual meaning of the words, so to not respect the book by indicating that your writing about the translation, is simply a low act that is too common among Christian polemicists, raise the standard by being honest. Your like a music critic who says “I don’t like Mozart” because you only heard him being played on a harmonica. There is no excuse for such shallow polemics.
Like Ghounem with the Qur'an, Christians admit that there are some errors in the translations. However, very similar to Ghounem's reasoning, the Biblical inerrantist will argue that, before a claimed error and/or contradiction in the Bible would have substance, we must consider the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be.
Which one is it? What is the true language? If you do not know, then you have no original to fall back on as in Islam. What is the original language of Jesus? The prevailing consensus is that it was Aramaic, so if Jesus spoke it in Aramaic, then common sense tells us that if it was written in any language other than Aramaic (Greek, German, English), then those languages are all translations of the Aramaic.
This is another example of the reviewer not understanding the subject matter. If you have one original, then any subsequent language is a translation. You can’t list three languages and claim them all as the original, that is like claiming Jesus spoke two languages simultaneously or a different language to each disciple in the group.
We are essentially on the exact same ground on this issue, and it would be hypocritical for one to discount this approach in one book, but allow it for the other.
The reviewer is exaggerating to suggest that the One language of Islam is comparable to the Three translations of Christianity. I say three because the Aramaic was translated from Hebrew according to some scholars, then the Greek was translated from the verbal Aramaic, and the English being translated from the Greek scribble. I include the English because the majority of English speakers believe their Bible is the exact word of God which I will soon expand on. Thus there is no way for Christians to fall back on the translation excuse because there is no way to verify the errors made between what Jesus said verbally in Aramaic (there is no audio recordings of his words) compared to the Greek translation of his speeches. I presume there were many errors because the Greeks were predominantly idol worshippers in those days, opposite of the Semitic speaking Jews.
Finally, Ghounem commented that "if you approached any Christian and told them that only the Aramaic Bible is 100% divine, they'd call you a heretic." In response, I can only wonder what kind of Christians with which Ghounem has been conversing, because it is only in the original languages (i.e. Hebrew, Greek, and comparatively little Aramaic), and only the autographs, that Christians (that I've talked to regarding this at least) argue that the Bible is inerrant.
I don’t know what Christians the reviewer has been talking to, but the English Bibles themselves claim to be the exact words of God;
“You may never have to look up a word in the English Bible to see the Hebrew and Greek meaning behind that word. The same word for word English equivalent is used for the same word every place the word appears in the original text. God's truth lights up inside of you in a new and fresh way! Faith is out of hearing, and hearing is through the exact Words of God, that is, God's voice is through the exact words that God has spoken. It is through these exact words that He speaks to you today! The Heritage Bible”
“So though for many reasons the Authorized Version (KJV) is the better for the general reading of the average Christian, nevertheless, everyone who wishes to find the exact words of God should have and study the Revised Version." (p. 15 Robert Sumber)
“However, because of modern versions, we do not know whether the Spirit moved or didn't move in Genesis 1:2! Regardless of manuscripts, translations or anything else, the Holy Spirit has delivered the exact absolute truth to us in the King James Bible.” GeocentricBible.com
I don’t know what Bible version the reviewer or his friends have produced, but according to these Bible editors, English Bibles are believed to be the exact words of God, so if the Bible publishers are saying so, I can just imagine what the majority of their readers are assuming.
The first statement made just above may be true in regards to direct answers. However, this is not the case in regards to indirect responses. For instance, several of Ghounem's complaints in chapter one are explained indirectly by a proper understanding of the Biblical authors' use of anthropomorphic language in describing God.
The Biblicists claim for the most part that those descriptions were mistranslations, thus the appropriate rebuttal is given.
As for the second statement regarding the alleged uniqueness of the book, modern critics like Dan Barker, Farrel Till, and C. Dennis McKinsey may take issue with this statement.
Which of their titles give an extensive list of replies to a broad range of Biblical topics? I may have seen some that give a few, but I’ve seen none that give nearly 200.
As far as appreciation is concerned, a book that actually tries to interact with the full depth of some of the apologetic answers given in these books may indeed have been valuable, but Ghounem has decided not to do that
I made a sincere exertion to do just that, I tried to make the book similar to a dictionary, as you may know, an entire book can be written about each word in the dictionary, but if they did so, the dictionary would be a mile long (costing $1,000.00 to make or buy), similarly, a book can be written on every way the Quran corrects the Bible, but like the dictionary editors, I paraphrased the 200+ ways. The book was over 300 pages initially, but I decreased the font and increased the margins so that I can keep the book affordable while still averaging an entire page for each way, giving the verses and passages for each side.
My point was that Ghounem should have extended his scope beyond mere problem-solving books, as evangelical scholarship extends far beyond this
Point taken, as mentioned before, I am working on different books which do utilize different Christian scholars (W.L. Craig, Hurtado, etc..) so while I am following your advice for upcoming books, admittedly this book mainly focuses on problem solving, but wasn’t that expected with the title I give?
Jochen: I decided to call the site "Answering Islam" and we registered answering-islam.org.- Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb wrote a book that they titled "Answering Islam", but Dr. Geisler had absolutely nothing to do with our site. The title "Answering Islam" for the book and for the site were independently developed/decided upon. That Geisler is the author of a book with the same title is mere coincidence. This shows that M. Ghounem doesn't do careful research, but simply propagates as fact what is merely his personal speculation.
Actually I’ve done more research than you think:
1) When I drove to a Church in NJ last year to hear Geisler give his anti-Islamic dribble, I spoke to him afterwards, following a pleasant talk, I gave some more info about myself, I told him that I used to debate his site’s webmaster Jochen Katz, and he nodded approvingly, he did not correct me to say Katz has nothing to do with me.
2) The chronology isn’t quite as you portray it, Geisler’s book was published in 1994, while your domain was created in 1997 according to the whois records, so Geisler chose the name before you did, so it’s only natural to say that Geisler was the original author.
3) Geisler’s book “Answering Islam” is being sold on the website Answering-Islam.org, Geisler’s material from the book Answering Islam is on the website called Answering Islam, do the math.
[(Quran 5:15-16)] This is one of several proof-texts that Muslims will appeal to in hopes of proving that the Qur'an claims that the Bible has been corrupted. However, "concealing" is a far cry from actual written corruption.
It’s amusing when others tell Muslims what the Quran is saying. The Quran, as my book demonstrates, settles the disputes between various Biblical scriptures, in other words, corrects the corruption. It’s true that the word “conceal” can mean various things, but we find that from the Bible, it means “words deleted”, for example (Matthew 17:21); K.J.V. "Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting”
R.S.V. (not included)
N.I.V. (not included)
G.N.B. (not included)
L.B.V. (not included)
More Biblical “concealing” here. So even if the Quran used a phrase as vague as “not forthright” to describe the Bible, we again come to the conclusion that the Quran means “words being deleted” because that’s what the Bible demonstrates.
Like with Jeremiah 14:14 just below, this passage says nothing about textual corruption. Ghounem is assuming what he has yet to prove.
Well, you have the Bible scribes saying it and the Bible editions showing it, all you have to do is accept it.
This has been dealt with extensively here and here.
The first link is amusing, it admits that the scribes were liars, but claims the scribes were lying about one thing and not the other, thus that site actually discredit’s the scribes as righteous men filled with the holy spirit since the site states they’re liars. So if it’s proven and even confirmed by the Christians that the scribes lied about one religious matter, what’s to make us think they didn’t lie about other religious matters?
[(Matthew 23:23) more here.] Somehow Ghounem has managed to turn a text referring to the scribes' and Pharisees' ignoring of admonitions in the Torah regarding judgment, mercy, and faith into an alleged statement by Jesus regarding textual corruption.
Another example of the reviewer giving info confirming the scribes were debauched on some major religious issues, yet the assumption is made that they weren’t doing anything else wrong. For example, if a store manager caught an employee stealing, it is naive to think that employee never stole anything prior to that or would not steal again if excused.
As far as "continuation" is concerned, I'll ask Ghounem to tell us where in the Qur'an Muslims are commanded to keep the 7th day Sabbath (4th commandment)
I wrote an article on the Islamic Sabbath here
regarding circumcision, why is it that Muslims do not follow the Biblical command to do so on the 8th day?
Muslims are told to perform it at the same time the Jews did:
"Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) performed the aq of al-Hasan and al-Husayn and circumcised them on the seventh day." (hadeeth of Jaabir) and the (Hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas) - that seven are from the Sunnah on the child's seventh day and in it there occurs: " .... he should be named and circumcised."
But.. culturally, circumcision is viewed as the religious introduction of a child into society, thus some postpone the circumcision ceremony until the child can appreciate the significance of the procedure, though it is obligatory to perform it before puberty, perhaps as a reflection of Moses’ son being threatened at an older age for not having circumcised yet (Exodus 4:24 – 26). So through Moses, God showed that there is a limited allowable time span.
since the necessity of keeping bloody sacrifices pervades the Torah, why is it that Islam does not command this to be done?
Actually it’s the opposite, the Jews stopped sacrificing (Jews don’t accept Masjid Al Aqsa as the third temple so they’ve indefinitely cancelled their sacrifices), while the Muslims sacrifice a lamb every year on the Eid ul-Adha (two months and ten days after the end of Ramadan). As repeatedly stated, it would help the credibility of the reviewer to actually know the religions being discussed.
“Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.'" (S. 3:45-50, Ali)
That has nothing to do with changing the ten commandments or other capital laws, this is an example of God’s mercy for those who accept the Quran. In the Bible, God added some laws on the Jews as a form of punishment;
“because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes and had polluted My Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Therefore I gave them also statutes (Laws) that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all who openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.” (Ezekiel 20:24-26). More on how Islam has removed Biblical curses here. While Paul considered all the laws a curse, Islam teaches only the ones that harm us were removed while the laws that keep us clean and righteous are still valid.
Actually, Ghounem is indeed saying that the Qur'an is full of translation errors, as he appeals to the original Arabic to try to correct Qur'anic difficulties! If a person doesn't even know what his/her own religion teaches, then how can he/she make an objective decision to follow that faith?
The reviewer is exaggerating the extent of translation difficulties I allude to, of the 1,000 pages in a translation, perhaps 3 % have issues, which as I’ve learned, is the average error curve when making translations, though the beautiful thing in Islam is that we have the original to verify the correct meaning while there is no audio recording of the original Aramaic words of Jesus.
1. Is it okay for non-Arab-speaking Muslims to read the Qur'an in their own language when not praying, just in order to try to understand it, even though there are translation errors in the versions of whichever language they may speak?
Of course, because there are Islamic centers and Islamic sites that can clarify the original meaning if a question arises in the estimated 3% of issues. Furthermore, many translations of the Quran contain commentaries that superbly explain phrases and meanings that could not be translated perfectly.
2. Keeping with what was said above, if you deem it unacceptable for Muslims to try to even understand the Qur'an through a translation, what do you expect them to do?
Eventually at their own pace, the converts learn Arabic and some become better Muslims than the Arabs.
If Ghounem states that it would be necessary for them to learn Arabic in response to #2, then why would the advice to Christians to learn some Greek and/or Hebrew be unreasonable?
Learn it, but where will you study the audio recording of what Jesus said in Aramaic? If you want to know what was said, study what Angel Gabriel gave to Prophet Muhammad.
[(Mark 11:12-14, 20)]. Any theological book author would have a more credible judgment if he/she actually had a decent amount of knowledge about what the Bible teaches regarding Christ, in that he was human as well as divine. This explains the hunger.
No it doesn’t, if Jesus was a theophany of God, then it’s to be expected that his divine side was able to satisfy the hunger of the human side, rather than arguing with a fig tree.
Note, however, that Ghounem further demonstrates his misunderstanding of the Trinity by claiming that a theophany is an appearance of the whole Godhead.
This is a common practice of degrading God among Christians. The Christians fail to fathom the magnitude and magnificence of God, it’s beyond their comprehension that even the tiniest fraction of God would satisfy the hunger of zillions. I’m always perplexed as to how the Christians can see the sun right in front of them, and know God created that sun (and many like it), yet still claim that God was a man who scuttled away from stone throwing Jews (John 8:59).
"One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth--a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere.” [Source: "The Case for a Creator." Lee Strobel..]
It wasn’t unanimous because Columbus was one of the groups of rebels who believed otherwise. However, when educated individuals like Galileo spoke out, look what happened to them, even today the Church prosecutes scientists, if a doctor in the US studied certain kinds of stem cell research, he/she could be imprisoned.
Since Ghounem is so fond of pointing out alleged logical fallacies in his critiques, we'll point out one here that Ghounem makes, that being his appeal to popularity. However, the "appeal to popularity" demonstrates another inconsistency on the part of Ghounem.
When I mention that nearly a billion and a half Muslims believe in Muhammad, thus Muhammad is the predicted Prophet in the Bible, it is actually a dual appeal because nearly half of those Muslims are converts from being Bible followers, so in actuality, I’m appealing to a combo of popularity and authority.
We see that he is now appealing to the majority for leverage when it suits his purposes, and dismisses the importance of mentioning the minority view, but in other parts of his response, when it suits his purposes, he appeals to the existence of Christians (that happen to be in a small minority) that practice certain heresies, or believe something that is Biblically bogus, in order to justify a given route for his polemics (e.g. polygamy, unorthodox versions of the Trinity)!
Polygamy was not always a minority view point, and it’s certainly not a minority view within the Bible (the pillars of Monotheism (Abraham and Moses) practiced it), and with different cotenants equally divided at different time periods on Trinity, then that’s not a minority view either. As you may know, different Church leaders at different centuries, have revolutionized the concept of Trinity. Even today, most Christians do not hold the same views on Trinity as other Christians as a day in soc.religion.christian can demonstrate.
Of course, in such cases, Ghounem does not tell us that such are practiced/believed by an obviously small minority of those claiming to be Christian.
Because they’re not minorities in the context of scripture and history. It’s true that modern day polygamy is not popular among Christians, but the scope of Christianity also covers the entire Bible and Church history. In that context, it’s no longer a minority view. Furthermore, my book is on the Quranic corrections of the Bible, not of modern Christian views, which at times is a big gap away from the Bible (Christians today resemble secularists in behavior (i.e. no Christian turns the other cheek).
Similarly, I don't find it unreasonable to expect that person making these grandiose claims to devote at least a few pages of space to briefly interact with some YEC scientific arguments for a global flood and young Earth. Ghounem was simply grossly deficient on both of these counts in his book, I'm sorry to say.
Your right in that every way could have been expanded on to some degree, as I stated earlier, an entire book could be written on each way the Quran corrects the Bible, but realistic considerations must be made as I’ve described by the dictionary exemplification. I’m not saying I cut corners, but I am saying I didn’t take unnecessary wide turns. There are several books written on the great flood, but like a synopsis, I give an outline of the facts. The type of book you suggest would have been filled with styrofoam as I’ve explained throughout this reply, so I am providing the raw product without the extravagant packaging. Look at other comparable books such as Ben J. Smith’s “Differences: The Bible and the Koran” (where is your negative review on how Smith crunched comparative topics?), or any other comparative religion book with a similar page count and price and you will notice I have over a 100 times more references and cross references to both the Bible and Quran, all while giving a pioneering fair inclusion of the other side’s reasoning.
JPH: I don't know what he means here. Paul did not think the world was coming to an end.
Wildcat: It appears from this that we'll have to ask Ghounem to explain which part of JPH's article he understood to imply that Paul thought the world was going to come to an end.
JPH’s link says; “The first point to consider is what Paul calls the "present distress" in 7:26. Some have seen eschatological warnings here and concluded that Paul sees the end of the world at hand.” Also the excuse that the Greek word for woman was used incorrectly is suggested.
The other issue mentioned is just another translation issue. Also, I wonder, once again, what kind of Christians that Ghounem has been talking to in order to come to the conclusion that the translators were supposed to be inspired.
The kind of Christians that produce today’s English Bibles.
[[Ezekiel 20:24-26 (See here)]] I went ahead and took this one myself rather than asking JPH. The link actually does not concur with Ghounem's position at all, at least if I've understood Ghounem's position accurately. Ghounem's book strongly implies that God literally *sanctioned* specific laws as a form of punishment, whereas the link states correctly that the text is indicating that God simply "gave them over to their sinful desires." This explanation fits not only the immediate context better, but also that which is given throughout the Bible.
It’s true that this side of God in the Bible is not common, but it is present. “And I also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live”. Even if we were to take the interpretation that God only let bad things happen to the Jews rather than forced bad things to happen, the reviewer should understand that one of the main functions of God according to Jews is to be a Protector, and if God is not protecting Jews, then it is their equivalent to being punished them, for example;
"And Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you." (1 Samuel 15:28), and (jos 13:1)
"And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites" Jos 10:7
So if God forces or allows to happen, it is the same result and the same punishment according to the Jews and the same conclusion according to any impartial witness. Although the reason Ezekiel 20:24-26 is talking about laws is because the words “statues” and “judgments” were used. Unnecessary laws as a form of punishment is a well known fact in Judaism, like when Jews were ordered to roam the desert for 40 years before going to Israel so that the oldest Jews would die before reaching Israel (Numbers 32:13).
[(1 Corinthians 9:20)] Ghounem has decided here to introduce a red herring, which does not answer our point. First, it is absurd to claim that one is being dishonest for not wanting to be a stumbling block to someone else. In fact, it would only be polite to serve a vegetarian guest a meal appropriate to his/her chosen dietary lifestyle. There is no reason to conclude from this that Paul was being deceptive, or is advocating deception.
I gave evidence that Paul is not trustworthy because he switched his religion based on his audience, in those days, that is as severe as switching your gender based on your companionship, in other words, he was behaving as a transvestite, someone with that sort of dual personality was likely to give dual opinions.
JPH comments on Ghounem's proof-text in an encyclopedic entry, this time with consideration of the relevant social issues of the day:
"Is Paul being a chameleon and a charlatan? No more so than the teacher who learns the dialect of a student in order to be more effective teachers to them. Is it being a 'chameleon' and being 'opportunistic' to absorb local customs and behaviors for the sake of viable communication? Not at all.
In those days, Paul’s actions were not as simplistic as teaching ABC, Paul was committing offenses punishable by death and coaxing others to do the same, all while requesting money for his endeavors (I Corinthians 9:13-14)
Upon further examination of the context of Ezek. 18:24, I must concede that I was mistaken in stating that this passage refers to spiritual death
It’s very honorable to admit you did not know the context, but this is one of many examples of not knowing the topic prior to writing your review. While on the other hand, I have spent years examining the topics, and if you do the same, I think you’ll appreciate my book rather than mistakenly criticize it.
Additionally, it should be obvious that this passage is not commanding apostates be put to death by the fact that the early church obviously did not execute apostates
Early Church put many thousands of people to death, some simply for being from a different branch of Christianity.
I'm personally not aware of any "apostate-hunting" on the part of the early church. Unfortunately, this was done at times in the Middle Ages to some extent, but there is no New Testament justification for such acts. That is, of course, unless Ghounem believes that the earliest Christians, including those that wrote the New Testament, misunderstood their own Scriptures, since there is no evidence of such occurring in the early church.
The history of Christianity is filled with “apostate-hunting”, but the Church leaders got creative and labeled the ex-Christians by other names; “witches”, “heretics”, or “traitors”. The logical word “apostate” is more associated with the Semitic religions rather than the imaginative words used by the Roman/American Churches, but what do you expect from followers of Trinity…..
JPH: Calling it an "excuse" is a helpless plea of someone with no actual answer. Where does he get that "Adam still had spiritual life and blessings with God"? It's nowhere in the text. The OT says Adam got curses from God.
There are several examples of how Adam still had spiritual life and blessings from God as described in my book:
Adam still spoke with God after eating from the tree, proving spiritual life (Genesis 3:9-22)
Adam and Eve had children, proving spiritual life (Genesis 4:1)
The descendants of Adam were blessed proving spiritual life (Genesis 6:18)
Adam is called the son of God, proving spiritual life (Luke 3:38)
Jesus is called the second Adam , proving spiritual life (1 Corinthians 15:45). More examples within the book.
Wildcat: As for Ghounem's comment on the number of excuses, it isn't the actual number that concerns me, but rather the inadequate representation of the apologetic arguments. As for "not taking time to read the rebuttals before writing the review," it was simply a matter of my finding the apologetic cases to be more persuasive than those of Ghounem rather than my not reading and considering his responses.
The excuses are not as persuasive when you cut out all the fat and just present the meat. Anything looks better with fur, but when you strip the coating, you realize how worthless the excuse was.
[Nothing in this commandment mentions how hard the hit is or whether the man can still have children] The link we gave demonstrates that the language used in the verse indicates a malicious act on the part of the guilty party. Instead of actually dealing with the data, Ghounem decides to pull a reductio ad absurdum.
Of course it’s malicious to be groped by the testicles, but the reviewer is committing a red herring by evading to the pain while ignoring the rebuttal which is doctor verified that being groped will not make you go sterile.
JPH: It appears Goony has wild fantasies of ancient people having pants and not robes with an opening in the front. And it doesn't require lifting of weights to give your "you know what's" a painful, debilitating squeeze. I invite him to try it on himself.
My name is Ghounem, which means lamb in Arabic, “goony” is a bird, so your wrong again in your interpretations. I know all about male robes because some wear them in Egypt, the opening in the front (if they were advanced enough to have one back then) is not a peep show as your thoughts may conjure, it’s a buttoned flap, so the argument stands that the woman would have to break through a buttoned flap, if they did not have the opening as I suspect (historical pictures of Jewish clothing does not indicate a flap, unless JPH has the libidinous pictures..), she would still have to rip through cloth, whether it was a robe or pants. So unless she was Edward scissor hands, JPH is still exaggerating. As far as trying it on myself, I’ll leave that to JPH’s fantasies.
Wildcat: I would actually be interested to see a doctor's testimony that states that a man's ability to reproduce cannot possibly be compromised by trauma to the testes and/or associated parts of the male reproductive system. The fact that it indeed can compromise the man's ability to reproduce should even be intuitively obvious.
“For the most part, the incidence of tunical rupture or permanent injury to the testicles is rare after a normal blow/kick due to mobility of the testicles in the scrotum and the overall testicular consistency, both of which act to distribute and absorb the mechanical energy. It is more likely that one experiences pain associated with possible swelling, bruising, or development of a hematoma (collection of blood within the scrotum-also rare). Essentially, development of any of the above conditions would depend on the degree of trauma. If the blow were substantial, one could envision that a patient might become sterile. Although this is possible, it is highly unprobable” MedHelp.com
I think all men have had their share of testicular trauma yet the human race still goes on…..
JPH: Again, since he thinks so I'd invite him to volunteer to give it a try and see how well he can "push away" someone with a death grip on his gonads -- especially when the woman's husband can step in also and hold him down. Oops.
I think JPH is beyond reach, his imagination is beyond bizarre, it’s violent….. Besides JPH talking without any medical knowledge, if the husband held down the man while the wife had her way with the man’s private parts, wouldn’t the husband also be liable to have his hand’s cut off or would the husband deny helping his wife come amputation time?
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful…. As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."(S. 5:33-39)
Exactly, Allah shows mercy and pardons the repenter, where is the Biblical opportunity for the protecting wife to repent for helping rescue her husband? Furthermore, in the building of America, stealing a horse was punishable by hanging, while in Islam, the severity and repetitiveness of the crime is considered before any punishment. Is it dramatic, yes, is there high crime rate in Muslim countries, no. It’s a form of deterrence just like many American states having the death penalty to deter murder.
In response, we'll quote some material Sam Shamoun has, contained in a response to Osama Abdallah, on inheritance according to the Old Testament: A careful reading of the entire context will show that the inheritance spoken of was LAND INHERITANCE. It has nothing to do with the bequeathing of money to family members.
Land was money back then as it is today, most people these days have the majority of their money invested in their property than in their bank accounts, unless Shamoun knows nothing about real estate, it would be naive to reiterate that the woman gets no land.
“and their father granted them an inheritance alongside their brothers." Job 42:12-15 NET Bible
One single father giving his daughters some inheritance is not proof that the Bible condones female inheritance, because in other places, the law is “no inheritance for women” for example, the Bible commands circumcision, yet some fathers did not give their sons circumcision (Exodus 4:24 – 26). So all Shamoun has shown is a Biblically disobedient father, while the laws barring female inheritance still stand.
'Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.' 2 Corinthians 12:14
This passage says nothing about daughters, Paul is talking about the male children, unless Paul was attempting to contradict the OT again. Paul in other passages differentiates between the genders (1 Corinthians 14:34). Furthermore, the Greek word used for children in this passage is “tevknon”, which is in the masculine form, indicating male children. (now that excuse and rebuttal took a few sentences each, yet the reviewer bemoans that I should unnecessarily inflate the book)
"This is unlike Islam which fixes the shares that a woman is to receive, irrespective of the circumstances. Thus, one can argue that since Islam has fixed the shares under the guise of a divine legislation, this means that in the case of a daughter she will always get less than her brother, even though it may be the case that the daughter is in greater need or has contributed more to the family than her sibling.
At least she does get something, whereas the Bible commands nothing for women, furthermore, in Islam, the brother, as the new man of the house, provides for what ever the unmarried sister needs.
In this instance, we see that the Qur'an admonishes men to beat their wives for disobedience as a last resort, after 1) admonishing them and 2) banishing them from their beds. Thus, Ghounem is correct regarding the "sequence of events" that must take place, but this "sequence of events," at the same time, casts doubt on Ghounem's claim about the "tooth brush like stick." Whatever we are to make of it, toothbrush or no, the context indicates that the beating had to hurt. If women were disobedient to the point that an admonition from their husbands, and even banishment from their beds, did not work, how will a light tap with a toothbrush actually serve to "get them into line"?
This is one of the instances where the teachings of Hadith clarify a detailed issue in the Quran:
"I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak (toothbrush like twig) and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).
Al-Razi (3:222) mentions that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and (b) the face must be avoided. He added that certain of the Shafi`i jurists said "a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf) or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick."
Thus a tap on the hand for being mutinous, rather than a Biblical chop of the hand for being protective. The Bible also teaches that if an innocent woman is doing nothing wrong and just minding her own business, and a man raped her, she would have to marry the rapist forever (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Therefore I believe any God fearing woman would rather get a light tap for being tumultuous as in the Quran, rather than getting amputated and a life time of rapes for being angelic as in the Bible.
[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.] JPH: Now that's plumb stupid. He has to do a certain *amount* of things to be recognized as a demoniac?
Yes, can you pick evil people out of a crowd of 20 just by looking at them? If so, your biased, because looks can be deceiving, the evil people in the crowd would have to perform some sort of behavior to demonstrate their wickedness.
Wildcat: I'll add to JPH's response that the demoniac's reputation would clearly indicate that he was indeed a demoniac. See Mark 5:1-5 where it is made implicitly clear that the demoniac had a reputation for causing problems, since he had to be chained. It is possible that only one had to be chained, yet it is only reasonable to conclude that other "demoniacs" would likely have been known as such by their previous actions. With that being the case, it wouldn't have necessarily been essential that the 2nd demoniac did anything in particular during the actual encounter with Jesus.
That’s really stretching it, if they knew people’s backgrounds, then they would have called them by their names, which they didn’t do.
I'm sure the folks over at the "Skeptics Annotated Bible," one of Ghounem's sources, also felt that they were using "common sense" in forming their "Skeptics Annotated Qur'an." I submit that "common sense" should make us realize that there is more involved in establishing "problems" in ancient or semi-ancient texts than merely looking for proof-texts.
SAQ bring up a few issues regarding the translation and context, but does the SAQ offer the Islamic answers as I offer the Christian responses in my book? No. So I don’t only proof text as you claim, it may appear as proof texting to a reviewer who does not have a grasp on the topics at hand.
[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]This is a mere smokescreen. First of all, Ghounem appeals often enough to what the majority-view on a given Biblical subject is in order to determine how a specific issue should be addressed, and as such, if he is going to be consistent, he would attempt to address the legitimate, orthodox beliefs regarding the Trinity. Of course, once again, we don't advocate the "appeal to popularity" fallacy, but we point this out again simply to demonstrate Ghounem's inconsistency. Secondly, Ghounem's book is entitled "200 Ways the Qur'an Corrects the Bible," and as such, we'd expect what the Bible actually teaches in this regard to be addressed, not what a given group, or groups, teach on the matter (particularly since Ghounem gives the impression in his book that he is actually attacking what the average, orthodox Christian believes).
I accept that the reviewer is not appealing to popularity, simply because as I’ve proven, there is no majority view of Trinity based on history and the Bible, even today, millions of Christians differ on the exact wording describing Trinity. I think it’s ludicrous to claim that the Bible describes one single type of Trinity when millions of Christians don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus as well as hundreds of Bibles in different languages giving varied descriptions. The reviewer might want to speak to Christians from other cotenants as I have and realize that foreign Churches do differ on what they mean by Trinity.
In this case, it is more than clear that the Bible does not teach that "the Trinitarian God was crucified," as the Gospels show that Jesus (i.e. the one being crucified) was actually praying to the Father. Ghounem's refutations of these concepts are fine if he were countering Oneness Pentecostals, who teach Modalism, but they are irrelevant as a counter to what the Bible, and by extension, orthodoxy, actually teach on this matter.
All blood atonement believing Christians insist that it was God on that cross, they reason that if it wasn’t, then the blood would not have been powerful enough to cleanse the world, so are you now claiming that Jesus was not God on that cross? Because according to the Bible, a man can not atone the sins of another man (Psalms 49:7).
This is a rather simplistic response given the hoard of data that JPH lists in link (1) to back up his assertion, but in order to respond to Ghounem's argument, the key once again is in understanding Christ's humanity.
A supreme human in the context of history is called a Prophet, other Prophets have done miracles greater than what Jesus has done, so stop trying to paint Jesus white and divine, come down from your high ladder or be like the Babylonians.
[(Revelation 14:3-4) Most Jews and many Christians believe the unmarried boys passage is literal. Once again we have here the "appeal to popularity," although in this case, I'd question whether or not this belief is actually a majority-belief among Christians.
This is actually another combination of majority and authority since the Jews are superior in understanding the OT than the Christians. Again it’s admirable to confess you don’t know the answer regarding it’s literal meaning, but again, how are you helping people by arguing topics you don’t know? Wouldn’t your sincere, yet naive view on the various topics here actually disadvantage rather than guide people?
[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 explain this quote.] Glenn Miller has an article on Luke 14:26, where the principles discussed there shed some light on this and other such passages.
This link actually confirms what I’m saying, Miller quotes;
“"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". Here Jesus avoids using a bipolar phrase a second time, while God in the OT emphasizes it; “All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.”
What did God do to the sinners in the OT? God killed them, so why would it be hard to accept that God did not love them? “I will love them no more”
Geisler used these authors, and others, as sources. To even hint that one has replied to these authors' work simply by attempting to refute Geisler
Then your not familiar with Geisler’s “When Critics ask” where he lists the excuses and the authors attributed to those excuses. It’s similar to an encyclopedia of apologetics. (By the way, Geisler also often uses only a few sentences to give an excuse). As stated, I’ve used nearly every Bible solving resource available and almost all were more scholarly than tectonics.org
With all due respect to Ghounem, after reading his response, I have, unfortunately, only managed to find more of the same kind of shallow argumentation and conflict-approach that characterizes his book.
This is a fallacy, your original review was 24 pages and your second review was 50 pages, no reasonable person would write back with 100 pages, which is what it could have taken to cover every single comment the four writers made. Instead I replied to both reviews in half the page count for both, all while showing time and time again how the Quran helps the Bible by giving brief and sufficient answers.
With all due respect, your negative review is based on your own bias and miscomprehension of the religions, you did not know that the assumed original Gospel is actually a translation from the verbal Aramaic into the scribbled Greek, you did not know that several passages are literal rather than figurative as you originally assumed, you didn’t know that Bible publishers are calling their modern day English Bibles the “exact words of God”, you didn’t know various Islamic laws regarding circumcision, the Sabbath, discipline, etc…, you didn’t know the history of apostate killing in Christianity, you didn’t know that Jews have indefinitely stopped sacrificing while Muslims still sacrifice, you didn’t know that Jews were given some additional laws as a form of punishment, and so on…
I don’t blame you for your innocent misunderstandings, no one is expected to be an expert, but to portray yourself as an authority (writer for tectonics) while being wrong on the points you address in my book does not reflect graciously on you or tektonics.
In conclusion, I’d like to thank the revered gentlemen who took part in this review, I pray that you have a better understanding on how Islam is the way, truth and righteous life for all humans. I hope the original reviewer has learned more about the Bible and Quran as well as the intricacies of creating my book. As shown, I’ve taken great efforts to perform the unprecedented task of including the heart of the available Biblicists explanations for each of the ways the Quran helps the Bible. I hope the original reviewer has also learned that the excuses can indeed be compressed to a few sentences once it’s realized that translation, copyist, and scribble errors are not as explainable as Biblicists convey and that even if verbose empathy is narrated for an error, it still remains an error. Thus, the Quran miraculously gives mercy and light to those who are in dispute between the OT and NT. All Praise due to Allah for this loving gift of giving humans another chance to repent and return to the right path.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
