A series of YouTube videos 'making the rounds' on anti-Islamic sites

There has been a considerable amount of internet chatter, over the last couple days, due to a series of YouTube videos that were linked to (and embedded) by at least three anti-Islamic sites:

January 24, 2012 (7:12 PM)- http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/01/does-quran-claim-that-bible-has-been.html

January 25, 2012 (7:35 AM)- http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4953

January 25, 2012 (1:07 PM)- http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/quran-never-says-text-of-bible-was.html

[Link to YouTube for alternate access to the above, and the rest of the videos in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY]

This series was uploaded to YouTube via the website: EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S UNCHANGING WORD. This site (IMHO) is by far, one of the more charitable, non-inflammatory, anti-Islamic apologetic sites I have encountered. And unlike so many other anti-Islamic apologetic sites, at least one of the main contributors, Faouzi "David" Arzouni, is actually fluent in Arabic (link to bio).

The series of videos, and related articles, on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an produced by EFGUW reflect my own position on the matter. I would urge anyone interested in this subject (including Muslims) to read through the material with an open mind, keeping in mind, there have been faithful Muslims who are in agreement with the assessment that the corruption spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to the INTERPRETATION, rather than the TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION of the Bible. (See THIS THREAD for an excellent, and balanced, book that touches on this subject.)

In addition to the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, EFGUW has also weighed in on another topic of interest to me—Surah 4.157 and the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ—Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Readers of this blog should be aware of my keen interest in this subject. For those not familiar with my take on this very important issue, I recommend the following threads:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/recent-interest-in-surah-4157.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html


Now, it is more than just a bit interesting that while ALL three of the above websites which linked to EFGUW series of videos on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an with glowing support, they in turn REJECT EFGUW's conclusions concerning Surah 4.157 !!! This is yet another example of the inconsistency, and poor methodology, that permeates much of the Evangelical online apologetic world. The methodology (i.e. Qur'anic exegesis based on pre-polemical interpretation, showing agreement between the Bible and the Qur'an) that EFGUW employed to reach it's conclusions concerning the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.

It sure seems to me that if one is going to endorse EFGUW's reflections concerning the Bible's status in the Qur'an, they had better accept their assessment of Surah 4.157, for if one rejects the latter, the former's credibility becomes damaged beyond repair.


Grace and peace,

David

English Hexapla - a parallel New Testament published in 1841

Earlier this week, I discovered an incredible (IMHO) online resource: the English Hexapla (a parallel New Testament - 1841). An excellent PDF copy is available for reading and download at:

http://www.archive.org/details/englishhexaplaex00schouoft

On page 161 of the PDF version, "THE PLAN OF THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA", is outlined—therein, it is stated that:

The name " Hexapla," signifies six-fold, or six-columned, and appropriately describes the arrangement of the Six English Versions.

And from the same page, the descriptions of the six English editions used in the English Hexapla are provided:

I. THE TRANSLATION OF WICLIF has been printed with the most scrupulous care, from a valuable manuscript in the library of His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, who has graciously permitted its use. The text of Wiclif's version, as here presented, is, in many respects, much more accurate and complete than the editions of Lewis and Baber. The present edition of this version has been minutely collated with the previously printed text, and every variation from it has been compared with the readings of twenty-one other MSS., so that not only have numerous transcriptural and typographical errors received correction, but it is believed that the genuine version of Wiclif is far more faithfully exhibited than by either of the two previous editions.

The introductory verses to the Gospel by St. Luke, which appear to be omitted in every known Wiclif MS., are supplied from a MS. in the library of Queen's College, Oxford, communicated by the kindness of Mr. Eastwick.

II. THE VERSION OF WILLIAM TYNDALE is reprinted from a copy of the edition which was revised by himself, and published in 1534 ; for the use of which the Publishers are indebted to the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol, where it forms part of the valuable collection of English Bibles and Testaments bequeathed by Dr. GifFord. Tyndale's " revision" has been adopted in preference to his first translation, because it far better exhibits him as a translator, and manifests the care which he took in revising what he had previously executed. The first edition, of 1526, has already been reprinted by the Publishers in 1836.

III. CRANMER'S, or "THE GREAT BIBLE VERSION" version, has been reprinted from a very fine copy of the first edition, 1539 ; also furnished by the kindness of the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol.

IV. THE GENEVA NEW TESTAMENT, is from a copy of the first edition, 1557. An exact reprint of tliis edition has also been prepared in a sepai-ate form, in whicii the text is printed line for line, and word for word, with the whole of the interesting marginal doctrinal notes, the prefaces and indexes, with fac-simile initial letters and other ornaments.

V. THE ANGLO-RHEMISH TRANSLATION has been reprinted from the original edition, 1582.

VI. KING JAME'S or THE AUTHORISED VERSION, is printed from a large black letter copy, of the year 1611. The Rev. John Heniy Montagu Luxmoore has obligingly allowed the use of a copy from his Library.

In addition to the online PDF version, a 'user friendly' HTML version is also available:

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm

For those with a lot of discretionary cash available, a hard copy may be purchased at:

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/hexapla-1841.html


I sincerely hope that others will find this wonderful resource as useful as I have.


Grace and peace,

David

John 17 and Unity: valuable insights from a conservative, Baptist pastor

Last week, I happened upon a website (link) providing some 35 sermons from the last two years of the "Word of Truth Conference". One of the sermons in particular caught my eye: John 17 and Unity, delivered November 11, 2010 by pastor Kent Brandenburg (link). I have done a good deal of study on this chapter, so I sincerely wondered what an independent Baptist pastor had to say. What I learned from his sermon was that he agreed with my understanding on many key points. In an effort to stimulate others into taking in the entire sermon, I shall provide a few extracts:

Beginning ff-

John 17 and unity. Anyone who wants to understand unity between Christians must consider Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17. I think this is an important point: Biblical separation and Biblical unity will mirror each other. Obviously Biblical separation will never violate Biblical unity; Biblical unity will never violate Biblical separation.

8:54 ff -

What's the unity that Jesus Christ was praying for here? All right. If we're going to understand what unity is, that unity is the unity that he wants between people, is the unity in this chapter.

12:05 ff-

The unity we desire should be the same as what the Lord Jesus Christ prayed for here...

Do you want the unity that Jesus prayed for?

What was it?

13:27 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed only for a spiritual unity. When I read commentaries on John 17, almost every single commentary differs on what they believe Jesus was praying for here. I'm talking about, if I read 25 commentaries, I can read 25 differences on what they think Jesus was praying for here. Is the Bible something we can't understand? Is the Bible not perspicuous? And I think it kinda drives me crazy; I mean, how, how is it that we can have so many opinions about what he is praying for here? How do I know that 26, let's say I am at number 26, why is 26 right? Why are the 25 wrong, and I am right? Can you know? Because I mean as you read the commentaries there are so many different viewpoints, how could people, how could we be sure that people can even know based on that.

15:01 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed for a spiritual unity found in their position in Christ...Ummm so he prayed only for people in Christ to have spiritual unity is what their belief is in John 17. Others assert this is a practical unity among all believers. All believers have a practical unity. Some teach that. OK. But I'm just telling you some people teach that. In order to have it they concluded a need to coalesce around a few important doctrines with which true Christians should and will agree; and the number is shrinking. The number is increasingly smaller, until you can put the doctrines on the head of a pin that you have to agree on, basically to have what the Bible teaches on unity; and really what's on the head of the pin is blurry, you can't even quite make out what, what it is.

23:44 ff -

If there's unity between all believers, I don't see it.

[End of extracts]


Amen!!!


Grace and peace,

David

4 useful, online (and free) Islamic studies resources

I thought I would share the links to 4 online Islamic studies resources that I have found to be quite useful in my personal studies. The first 2 are books that I own (and now also have on my hard-drive), the latter 2 I did not have before discovering them online, but have now also found a cozy place on my hard-drive:

Martin Lings', Muhammad - His Life Based On The Earliest Sources - this is my favorite biography of Muhammad, after Guillaume's English translation of Ibn Ishaq's, Sirat Rasul Allah, under the title - The Life of Muhammad (Oxford, 1955; 10th impression 1995).

Ahamd Von Denffer's, Ulam al-Qur'an - An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an - though not as comprehensive as Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi's, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an (1999), it is a solid treatment, especially for those who are just beginning to explore this particular subject.

al-Tirmidhi's, Jami' al-Tirmidhi - this is one of the six major Sunni Hadith collections (I personally consider it to be the third most reliable after Shahih Bukhari and Shahih Muslim).

The Qur'anic Manuscripts - a good introduction to the early history of Qur'anic manuscripts; this pdf document seems to be related to THIS online article (I recommend Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami's, The History of the Qur'anic Text (2003) to those who can afford it).


ENJOY!!!


Grace and peace,

David

Two Reformed Baptist sites that I discovered earlier today

Before I delve into the topic of this thread, I would like to share my thoughts on a couple of items that are currently on my mind.

First, I would like to state that many of the threads that I post here at AF have the express purpose of presenting 'another side' to topics that I am either currently studying, or have seen being expounded (and debated) upon at other online sites.

Second, I am amazed at just how many issues are being debated over and over again, with little (usually no) sign/s of learning and/or development that should be taking place if each 'side' would seriously reflect on what their opponents have presented previously (some sites being merely monologues, allowing no dialogue at all, or only from those who already agree with what is being discussed).

Now, the above is actually more of an introduction to an upcoming thread (the Lord willing) that will discuss a prime example of an issue that is being debated repeatedly on a number of internet sites, with pretty much NO development: sola fide.

But before I jump back into the fray, I wanted to share a couple of new sites (at least to me) that I happened upon earlier today.

The first site I would like to share with my readers is:

Credo - The Magazine

The purpose of the site and magazine is summed up in the following statement:

Credo magazine is self-consciously Evangelical, Reformational, and Baptistic: Evangelical since it aims at being supremely Gospel-centered, exalting in the substitutionary death and historical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; Reformational as the gospel it promotes is defined by the solas of the Reformation; and while Credo magazine welcomes contributors from diverse ecclesial backgrounds, it seeks to especially celebrate those doctrines that mark the Baptist tradition. (link)

The first issue (and only issue to date), was published just last October. In addition to the magazine, the site also has a Blog, and Media page.


The second site/blog is:

The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies

This site revolves around Historia ecclesiastica - "The Weblog of Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin".

My personal interest in this site/blog is focused on the Dr. Haykin's "Ancient Church" series (see right side bar on the sites opening page for links). I am still in the process of reading through this series; much of what I have read, has been informative.


Anyway, I sincerely hope that some of my readers will find the above sites of use in their own studies.


Grace and peace,

David

Recent interest in Surah 4.157

In addition to my two threads on surah 4.157 (and the issues of the death and crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an- first; second), there seems of late, to have been a fair amount of interest in this particular ayah from the Qur'an. The following are a few of the examples I have recently come across on the internet:

At the website called, Antioch Believer!, Asf Aslan (the owner who resides in Antioch, Turkey, and describes himself as a "Minister of the Gospel"), posted the thread, What does the Quran say about Jesus death?, back on July 1, 2011. In that thread he wrote:

In the verse 4:157 please notice carefully, “WA lakin shubbiha lahum” means "He was made to resemble to them" or "it was made to resemble to them" or "a likeness of that was made for them" or "a similitude was made for them" -- not "someone was made to resemble him". In the sentences, "it" or "that" refers to the incident and not a person.

In fact, I don't see in Q 4:157-158 a denial of Christ's death, nor yet a denial of His crucifixion. Actually, I see a harmony between the text of that Surah, and John's gospel, when Jesus said; Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.- John 10.17-18.

After further commentary, Asf Aslan concludes his post with:

The Quran is not actually denying His crucifixion, nor yet His death. And to consider that He was raised up to life, and subsequently raised up to Allah, as is also in harmony with Bible (John 20.9-17; Acts 1.2-3, 9). Please click here for more details on Jesus death from the Quran.

On the site, A Christian Thinktank, a long, but very informative, response was given to a "truth-seeking Muslim", who had questions about the death of Jesus on the cross (SEE THIS THREAD). The entire thread is a must read (IMHO), but at the end of the post, the following summation is provided:

Ok, let’s try to summarize this data:

1. The non-controversial Qur’anic references to the death of Christ are clear in affirming a historical death.

2. Because of a perceived conflict with an interpretation of 4:157, these verses were re-interpreted (sometimes almost bizarrely).

3. Muslim and non-Muslim interpreters know that God caused Jesus to die—no human agency could take credit for it.

4. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars know that the passage is obscure and not clear enough to build such a ‘large’ doctrine on. (Some even add the phrase ‘And God knows best what happened’!)

5. Scholarly exegetes who were closer/truer to the text tended to reject/criticize the substitution legends.

6. It is frequently known that it is not the Qur’an that denies the historicity of the Cross, but rather some interpreters of the Qur’an who do so.

7. The range of interpretation of the verse by Muslims over the years shows that ‘denial of the Cross’ was not an early/reliable and consensus tradition.

8. Many (most?) modern Muslim scholars do not hold to the non-historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

9. There were several equally plausible ways of understanding the verse, which fit with the other Qur’anic witnesses and the witness of the prior Books.

10. The early Shi’i community explicitly accepted the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

11. The Qur’an itself shows that the objection that “Prophets are protected by God from such deaths” is false.

12. Several Muslim intellectuals had argued over the centuries that the substitution legends were illegitimate intrusions into the interpretation, mostly coming from the unreliable Isra ‘iliyyat (from both Jewish and Christian sources). And in some cases the alleged Islamic sources were too suspect themselves to be used for establishing proper Muslim belief.

13. Several of the most learned, respected, and submitted Islamic scholars in history rejected or criticized the substitution view.

14. The grammar of the controversial passage militates against it supporting a substitution theory.

15. Some Muslim scholars/groups held (a few still hold) that Jesus was crucified, but that only His body died—His spirit was alive to God.

16. But the understanding which makes the most sense out of the passage, the other passages on death, the repudiation of the boasts of the Jews in 4:157, their uncertainty about their success in overcoming/extinguishing a Prophet of God, and the wording about the Battle of Badr (and the passage in the Zabur 44 I cited) is that God caused Jesus to die at the hands of the Jewish enemies—for His own sovereign purposes—but that He cancelled that death and exalted/raised Jesus up to honored status as a Living Teacher, Prophet, and Judge who will come again at the end of time.

17. This latter understanding agrees with the pre-Qur’anic revelation—in conformity to the claims of the Qur’an itself that it ‘confirms’ the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (as they existed at the time of Mohammed).

From the pen of Gabriel Reynolds, the Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology Director, at the University of Notre Dame, we read:

This point might be taken still further. If tafsīr indeed provides an accurate explanation of the Quran’s original, intended meaning, then nowhere should the explanation be clearer than in the case of the Crucifixion. If the Prophet Muhammad announced to his companions that Jesus never died, but rather someone who was made miraculously to look like him died in his place, i.e. if he gave a historical account of the crucifixion which fundamentally contradicts that which Jews and Christians had been reporting for hundreds of years, then certainly such a revolutionary account – if any – would be well remembered and well preserved. But, quite to the contrary, the reports of the mufassirūn are inconsistent and often contradictory. They have all of the tell-tale signs of speculative exegesis.

This strikes me as reason enough for critical scholars to read this quranic passage in light of earlier (i.e. Jewish and Christian) and not later (i.e. Islamic exegesis) literature. When the Quran is read in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that the passage on the crucifixion is fully in line with Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric. A major theme of this rhetoric, of course, is the portrayal of the Jews as prophet-killers. Accordingly the Quran, in sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 155, accuses the Jews of “murdering the prophets”. When the Quran then alludes to the crucifixion just two verses later, it means to give the cardinal example of just such a murder. (The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?)

Further contributions that are germane to our topic, which are available online, include the following:

Via the Reformed site Contra Mundum: The Crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim Theology

The Answering Islam site provides M.N. Anderson's, "Strike The Truth In the Cross" (Part 4 of his, Jesus The Light And Fragrance of God) - LINK

And at the blog, Religious Roundtable, the thread: The Crucifixion and the Quran.


Anyway, thought I would share some of my recent discoveries on this important issue—ENJOY!!!


Grace and peace,

David

Dr. Todd Lawson's stimulating lecture - "Tafsir and the Meaning of the Qur'an: the Crucifixion in Muslim Thought"

Back on November 21, 2009 (LINK), I introduced my readers to Dr. Todd's Lawson's ground-breaking book, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an. (I also shared a few of my own reflections on this issue in the same thread). Yesterday, I discovered that back on October 23, 2010, Dr. Lawson delivered a lecture on one of the topics in his book.

Part 1 of the lecture is below:


Todd Lawson from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.



Part 2:


Todd Lawson (Part 2) and Daniel Madigan from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.


It seems that none of my readers chose to purchase Dr. Lawson's book (at least to my knowledge); perhaps the viewing of his lecture will stimulate greater interest in this very important topic.


Grace and peace,

David