Nadir Ahmed spoke first. He was in the affirmative. His proposition was,
(The reason for the affirmatives to be stated in the "negative"was that Nadir Ahmed already had six points that he was determined to make. I was glad to take those six points to task, but I was not about to make an affirmative speech to set up his six points. There was much discussion about how we could do this.....the result of that discussion was the cumbersome wording if the propositions.)
THE FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE TO HIS SPEECH........
I am thankful to God for this opportunity to reason with Nadir and the Muslims who are present. I thank them for coming. I am also reasoning with each of you. This is an important quest that we are on during the next few nights. The Muslims teach that the Qur'an is the inspired word of God. If it is, then we must believe it and obey it. If it is not, then it is a fraud. If it is a fraud then those who teach from it are false teachers. You cannot go to heaven following false teaching.
Nadir and I have had a friendly relationship before the debate and I know that will continue after the debate. He is sincere and very knowledgeable on the Qur'an and the religion of Islam. He has held many debates prior to this and is a good representative of the Muslim position.
The Muslims believe that Moses was a prophet of God. They teach that in Deuteronomy 18:18, where Moses speaks of God raising up a prophet, and that any who do not heed the words of that prophet God said "I will require it of him." THAT PROPHET IS MOHAMMED. I believe that prophet is Jesus. If that prophet is Mohammed....you had better believe in him as a prophet of God...and obey him..BUT, IF IT IS JESUS...BELIEVE AND OBEY HIM.
THAT, AT LEAST IN PART, IS WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.
Notice throughout this debate which position offers "expert testimony" and which offers broad sweeping testimony with no proof. Just as in a court of law no one can simply say...Doctors all agree that "such and such" is deadly... WHERE'S THE PROOF? WHAT DOCTORS?? HOW ARE THESE DOCTORS QUALIFIED??
NADIR MAKES MANY CLAIMS.......But he offers no "expert testimony." This carries the weight of "one man's opinion" As we go through the debate let's note who backs up what they say with proof from the "Experts"
In all that Nadir said, did you get the idea that Mohammed, in the Qur'an, taught that the Bible
was to be disregarded?? Did you know that Mohammed told his followers to respect the Bible?
Nadir doesn't seem to be following Mohammed on this teaching.....listen to Mohammed....
The Muslims teach that Moses was an inspired prophet of God. On this we will agree. Let's listen to Moses.....
Deut. 18:15-19...."The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him."
Of Whom was Moses speaking?? This is at the heart of what we will be debating.
Was this prophet Mohammed or Jesus? I would like for Nadir to answer this question if he has time in his rebuttal.
Let's reason together....
This prophet could not be Mohammed....Moses, by inspiration, said this prophet would come "From among you"...."From your countrymen"
Mohammed was not a Jew....Mohammed was not one of "their (the children of Israel) countrymen"
The prophet is identified by the inspired apostle Peter in Acts 3:18-26....These statements of
Moses are quoted here....The prophet that was a Jew...one of their own countrymen was Jesus
Christ of Nazareth...the Son Of God!!
There were at least 300 things prophesied about Jesus that all came true....none failed....prophecy of his place of birth (tiny Bethlehem)...That John the Baptist would come as a divinely appointed messenger to announce His arrival...How He would come into Jerusalem for that last time....In triumph, but rejected by the leading Jews....His betrayal.....His trial....His crucifixion (even Jesus predicted His own death and resurrection) with many details...and His glorious resurrection.
NONE OF THESE THINGS APPLY TO MOHAMMED.....
AND WHERE CAN WE FIND LIKE PROPHECY CONCERNING MOHAMMED??
Let's reason together about these weaknesses that Nadir has brought before you...
Nadir ridiculed the idea of there being three persons in the Godhead. He calls us polytheists. He said he believes in "One God." Nadir, so do we. We believe in One God, but you believe in a "limited God."
Nadir said that God ONLY is to be worshipped. And we agree here, too! We'll see in a moment where we do disagree. I'll show you how Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God and yet are ONE. But I want to make sure that I understand first what Nadir and the Muslims believe.
Nadir said that Jesus is one of the "mightiest messengers of God." And that He was born of a virgin, miraculously, having no earthly father. Nadir said that Jesus was a worker of miracles "by God's commission."
NOW LET ME UNDERSTAND.....(quote above attributes...) But he is a liar and a fraud?? He claimed to be God; He claimed to have power over sins;....... BUT He was a part of a great hoax?? He really wasn't crucified?? He really wasn't resurrected?? All of that was simply a lie that He helped carry out?? Everything that He declared about His death, burial, and resurrection was a fraud and a lie......however, God thought so much of Him that He took Jesus up into heaven??
Nadir said that our view of Jesus was similar and that these were the only "points of difference."
We believe that Jesus is "Only Begotten Son of God" - the Muslims do not.
We believe that Jesus was One of the "Trinity" - the Muslims do not. (Where did you get that I believe in "Trinity?" Did you hear that word from me?? One of the qualities we'll see of the Qur'an is that Mohammed fights against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Nadir, I don't believe in the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity....nor do I believe in the deity of the virgin Mary.
Here's what the Bible teaches, however..........
Sean, Put up OHP#1 (OHP=Overhead Projection)
THE FATHER IS GOD....John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not
yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and
your Father, and My God and your God.'"
THE SON IS GOD....THE HEBREW WRITER, BY INSPIRATION, APPLIES PSALM 45:6
TO JESUS.... Hebrews 1:8. But of the Son He says, "THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER
AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO CALLED GOD .... Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, "Ananias, why
has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the
land? "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not
under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied
to men, but to God."
THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE TWO DISTINCT PERSONS ...
John 8:13-18....(skim to v 16) The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You are bearing witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true." Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. "You people judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.16 "But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and He who sent Me. "Even in your law it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true. "I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FATHER ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS.....
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE SON ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS....Acts 10:38
"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him.
All 3 are God....They possess the qualities of being God. There is only one state of Godhood. In the same way that we all share the qualities of mankind......
It is obvious that Nadir's concept of Christianity is different from the Bible
I would like to talk briefly about Nadir's concept of what Christianity is and who Christians are........
We are in agreement about rejecting all of the Catholic and Denominational doctrines.....I will not try to defend them.....I am only interested in defending the truth. Sean....Put up OHP#2
Matt. 16:18 "And I also
say to you that you are
Peter, and upon this rock I
will build My church; and
the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it.Acts 2:46-47 And they,
continuing daily with one
accord in the temple, and
breaking bread from house
to house, did eat their meat
with gladness and
singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to
the church daily such as should be saved.
Christianity began with Jesus, specifically on the first Jewish Pentecost after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. All of the prophecies of the O.T. that pointed to a new and better Kingdom; a time when the Messiah would rule; a Kingdom that would not be shaken....all were referring to a spiritual relationship that we can have with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus came and taught concerning this relationship, His church. It was ONLY after the day of Pentecost that the church began to be spoken of as being IN EXISTENCE. THAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP THAT IS THE SAVED!
After about 300 years there began to be changes as men decided to deviate from the instructions of our Lord concerning the work, worship, and organization of the church. In 606 we can identify a complete separate entity that had emerged, the Catholic Church with its first official head on the earth. Meanwhile, Christians who were opposed to these changes kept these things pure as they simply followed the instructions of Jesus in His gospel.
The Catholic church continued making changes and taking on a life of its own until it became such a tremendous "monster of apostasy" that some of her priests tried to reform her. They were ultimately excommunicated and religions began springing up around them. THESE ARE THE PROTESTANTS that you talk about. WE ARE NEITHER CATHOLIC NOR PROTESTANT!!
Nadir likes to talk about the different versions of the Bible....The Douay Version with its 73 books....the KJV with its 66 books....etc... because there are some differences in these texts he believes this proves that the Bible is not the word of God....
Nadir.....I, too, reject the Douay version of the Bible. Even the Catholics regard the additional 7 additional books as deutero-canonical....of secondary importance in the canon of scripture.
A question I would like for Nadir to answer....Are there also different versions of the Qur'an? Are there some of these versions that you believe are better than others?? If that is the case, are you willing, then, to throw out the Qur'an - because we cannot know which version is right??
Nadir....hold on to your seat...I, too, reject any of these "books" as being "inspired." There are minor errors in each one.....I will freely admit that. Let me show you what I DO believe was inspired. ...... Sean....Put up OHP#9
SHOWS THAT ONLY THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS WERE INSPIRED
Most Ancient Copies...
Codex Sinaiticus - Codex Vaticanus ....Both 4th Century
Codex Alexandrinus - 5th Century
Septuagint (Gr. Translation of OT) - 285BC
Samaritan Pentiteuch; Peshito (or Syriac); Vulgate 400AD (OT&NT) John Wycliffe...1300's Translated into English
William Tyndale ...1500's "more modern" English
The KJV ... 1611...(47 scholars under direction of the king) Considered best for 300 years....
Douay Version ......made from the Latin Vulgate (Late 1500's and early 1600's)....Published to express the notes, etc. of the Roman Catholic Church.
Revised Version....(1880's) Made by the most noted English and American Scholars...Supposed to be a revision of the KJV....Unlike the other versions before it ....Went back to the MOST ANCIENT COPIES....SOME OF THESE MOST ANCIENT CODICES WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE K.J.V.
American Standard Version....(1900) Incorporates the readings preferred by the American members of the Revision Committee of the Revised Version.
Nadir stresses and belittles the fact that there are differences in these different versions (translations) of the Bible.....He even holds up the Living Bible which is a PARAPHRASE....
Nadir, you need to know the difference between a paraphrase and a translation...Nadir reads from the Introductory pages of these Bibles as if they were scholars....and the introductions to the books as if they were inspired....These are merely comments by men who want you to buy their book....
NADIR....Do you believe every version of the Qur'an is inspired? If so, why do they differ??
Let's look at what history shows concerning the translations of the Qur'an.....
note: since the chart seems to indicate that Othman's Copy came from the six listed above
it....that is inaccurate...however these versions did predate Othman's
How The Qur'an Got Here
How The Qur'an Got Here
Mohammed Spoke - Much was memorized - Some written on all different kinds of surfaces
MOHAMMED WROTE NOTHING!!
During this time there was a battle against a certain false prophet.....those who had memorized were being killed....OMAR said to the Calif Abu Bakr (the first Calif after the death of Mohammed) that since so many were being killed they needed to get a collection of all he said. He did not agree since Mohammed had given no commandments to do that.......He finally agreed.
He called upon a man named Zaid to do the compilation, he objected on the same basis....Mohammed gave no such command....but he wound up doing it.
This produced Different Codices (ancient books-mms)
Damascus - UBAIY B. KA'B - 2 Additional Suras
Kufa - 'ABD ALLAH B. MUSAD - Suras 104, 113 are missing...possibly 1, too.
Basra - ABA MUSA 'ADB ALLAH AL-ASHARI - He had the 2 Suras of Ubaiy
Hims - MIKAAD B. 'AMR
THE QUR'AN WAS NOT COLLECTED INTO ONE BOOK DURING MOHAMMEDS LIFETIME....NOR DID HE GIVE ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO....
When Othman Ibn Affan became the third Khalifah....he was afraid that corruption to the text had come in through some Arab converts......he commissioned a committee to investigate. All copies were called into the committee and ultimately
4 COPIES MADE of what was now to be the "official and correct text." ALL OTHERS BURNED.
.......There are many translations today that build from this point. Each are different.....some are better than others; depending on the translation.....
I was using a translation by M.H. Shakir. Nadir suggested ....AND SUPPLIED...a better translation......
THEN......He informed me that the version that he was going to use......and he gave me the web site where it is located......so that I could use it too....This is "The Nobel Qur'an" (See the Links to Other Materials for this link to the Nobel Qur'an.
There are many other translations....
"First American Version" translated by Dr. T.B. Irving
Another translation is Pickthall's Translation;
Another translation is Yusu Fali's Translation;
and there is another translation Arberry's Translation;
and there's Sher Ali's Translation;
Then ther's Rashad Khalifa's Translation......
Nadir, we still have very early MMS of the Bible....not originals....these early copies are divided up into "families" that carry the same "difference" that is peculiar to it. By comparing these "families" we can be better equipped to know what the original text said....We can be certain that the text that we have is authentic....Nadir, you can't go back beyond Othman's work. You are at his mercy.....we'll deal more with this later...
Sean...Put up OHP#10
Notice that in the NT Jesus didn't personally write anything....Nadir is correct....However, neither did Mohammed. For that matter he was illiterate. Jesus promised to send the H/S to guide the apostles into "all the truth." They wrote those things that were given to them by Jesus. Their writings were certified by the working of miracles. These writings were accepted and in common use by the first century Christians. The Catholic Church eventually put their "Seal of Approval" on those writings (then claimed they gave them to us). Mohammed never ordered a collection and writing of his words. This was done later. Jesus taught His word, as did His apostles, both publicly and privately. So did Mohammed. In both sets of writings different copies arose. Scholars have had to collect, collate, and compare these works to authenticate them. The difference is that Othman burned the evidence and the scholars of the Bible did not. We can go back and check their work. You cannot check the earlier works...they don't exist!! We both clain that, even though the originals don't exist, we have an authentic copy of the original works.
Now concerning John 3:16....Nadir says that John 3:16 is bogus. He told us that the word "begotten" should not be in the text; and that this is the only place in the Bible that this term is used. Rememebr he told you about the 32 scholars who rejected the use of that term and were forced to put it back in because of the Bible sellers?? Nadir, you offered no proof; just your conjecture...What do the scholars say??
Sean...Put up OHP#20
In the Interlinear of John 3:16 we find that the word that is translated "only begotten" is the compound word "monogenes."
Let's see what that compound word means. Nadir said that it only refers to the base elements of the sex act. Like two animals involved in sexual conduct.
Sean...put up OHP#23 Spiro Zodhiates, a doctor of theology, is a well known and respected Greek scholar. He is not a member of the church of Christ...I wouldn't accept his theology on many points....but I do respect his knowledge of the Greek language.....
Dr. Zodhiates tells us that "monogenes" is a compound word.... monos="only" and genos="stock".....It means (monos)"unique, one of a kind" and "genos" refers to being the offspring, this is where we get our words "genes" and "genetics." Dr. Zodhiates refers to the statements in John as referring to Jesus as the "only one" or "unique one" who is from "genos" (relationship to) the Father.
Nadir, Dr. Zodhiates makes no reference to the sexual act at all!
LET'S LOOK AT ANOTHER SCHOLAR.....(rememeber, now, that Nadir didn't offer any scholarly proof)
Let's look at another scholarly source; Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance of the NT.
(Sean, Put up OHP#22) One of the things this book does is to help you find EVERY PLACE in the NT a specific Greek word is used, and the way it is translated. This helps us to compare the other way that the word may be translated as well as give us every context to look at.....here we see the word "MONOGENES" translated most often as "only begotten." No context talks about sexual activity. Nadir says that is what the primary use of the word is. He also tells us that John 3:16 is the only place that word is found. If he's referring to the Greek word "monogenes," it is found nine times....if he's referring to the English translation "only begotten" it is translated such six of those nine times
Nadir....According to the scholars you are incorrect about your understanding of John 3:16.....The error that is commonly made by those who would want to discredit the Bible is this.....
1. English words are translated from the Greek
2. They take the English dictionary..sometimes the 3rd or 4th meaning to give the worst definition
3. What you need to do is go back to the original language on controversial words
4. Language changes....that's why by God's providence the Koine Greek died just after the
completion of the Bible....the Koine Greek didn't continue to change...as the Arabic has....
Now Let's see if Nadir is right about all these Interpolations....Fabrications....
Sean put up OHP#24
The word INTERPOLATION, according to the "Handbook of Biblical Criticism," does not mean what Nadir says......"just made up stories"....Nadir said they were "fabrications" etc.
Though not a scholar, I took Biblical Criticism in college. I have probably forgottel more than I knew....but I saved my notes and textbooks.
The word INTERPOLATION is a word used in Textual Criticism. It refers to something added in the process of scribal transmission. It is most commonly in the form of a word that was added to give a clearer meaning. Sometimes entire phrases were added from the column of the scribe. Even a few times an entire segment. The Textual Criticism problem is that you can not always know for sure whether something was "added" to the translation that has it...or "omitted" from the ones that don't have it. Verses present in the later Byzantine MSS (used as the basis of the KJV) which are not found in the more ancient MSS of the NT are considered to be interpolations. Since most modern versions are based on the older MSS, the interpolated verses are often, but not always, omitted from the text and placed in a footnote.
Two things to remember about interpolations...1) only a minute part of our Bible has these questionable verses (much less than 1%) and .....2) Interpolations change no doctrinal point. There is nothing of any, even slight, importance that we find MIGHT BE an interpolation
Nadir told us a story about the RSV about how the scholars know that the story of the woman taken in adultery was an interpolation but was forced into putting it in because of the "Bible thumping evangelicals."
Where is the "proof" for this story of RSV two versions .... and the pressure put on by "book
sellers.".....Talk about made up stories!!!
Nadir uses the example of bird droppings in a glass of water as if most of the Bible is
corrupted....truth is less than 3% (considering the interpolations and the unreconcilable errors in translation) in less than 3% is there any question about by the scholars.....NONE OF THAT 3% HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DOCTRINE....ANY PRINCIPLES THAT ARE TAUGHT IN
ANY OF THESE QUESTIONABLE PASSAGES ARE ALSO TAUGHT IN OTHER PLACES IN THE BIBLE.... Nadir gave several, "THE CREAM OF THE CROP," examples of the error in the translation of the Bible. Remember as we look at them....this is the best that they have to offer....
It is obvious that Nadir doesn't like the way that God chose to write the Bible....
1He points out that....none of the writers of the Gospels said they wrote the Bible..
2...He sneers at the fact that Paul wrote to friends to bring coat & papers in 2 Tim. 4:13
3....He belittles the statements by Paul 1 Cor 7 "Paul gave his opinion"
Nadir, these are not scholarly views. You are offering your opinion that God could have done a better job by doing it differently. That's your opinion. God got the job done well by sending the Holy Spirit to these men who wrote these things down. They wrote inspired letters that were shared by all the Christians....and were confirmed to be authentic by the working of miracles.
Sean...Put up OHP#8....Here's how God revealed His Word to man...
God, the Holy Spirit, revealed ALL TRUTH to those MEN Jesus chose. In John 16:12-14 we read..."I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you."
So that there could be no mistake the working of miracles CONFIRMED THE WORD....In 2 Cor. 12:12 Paul wrote, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."
NOW WE HAVE EVERYTHING THAT GOD WANTED US TO HAVE - "ALL THE TRUTH" IN THE BOOK CALLED "THE BIBLE"
Notice that this book tells us that there will be no more revelations to come....In Jude 3 we read, "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
and in 2 Peter 1:3...."seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence."
THE WORD HAS BEEN CONFIRMED.....Does this sound like God was going to give a further revelation? Listen to Heb. 2:1-4, "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will."
WHETHER NADIR LIKES THE WAY GOD CHOSE TO REVEAL HIS WORD....
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!
Now let's talk about all these great "contradictions" that Nadir says will show that the Bible can't be from God.
Men spent there lives trying to find some way to discredit the Bible....Nadir makes the best case that can be made (I told you..."He know's his stuff").....I'm impressed with the fact that this is the best that the enemies of the Bible can come up with.......this alone ought to prove the Bible came from God.......
Remember that I told you to pay attention to the quality of evidence presented. Tomorrow night we'll talk about the Qur'an and the contradictions there.
Tonight let's examine these contradictions that Nadir presented
2 Sam. 24:1 tells us that "God numbered Israel"
and in 1 Chron 21:1, we read that"Satan numbered Israel"
Nadir made a great point that in any way of thinking, Satan and God are not the same....and that's true. But, Nadir, these passages are not hard to understand.......
It is consistent with Hebrew thought that whatever happens in the universe...God allows. Here God was very mad at Israel for the numbering of Israel....Satan caused them to think that having greater numbers would cause them to be triumphant over their enemy......They had forgotten that it was God who was giving them their victories......THE POINT IS SATAN WAS BEHIND THEIR
ATTITUDES....GOD ALLOWED THESE THINGS TO TAKE PLACE."
This is similar to statement that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart..." Did God cause Pharoah to sin?? Or did He allow Satan to do it?
Look at how God works in the beginning of the book of Job. Did God cause all those bad things to happen to Job?? NO! He allowed Satan to do it. But who was in charge?
Another contradiction that Nadir brings to us is in 2 Sam. 24:13, we find that "Gad came to David....choose 7 years of famine"
And he said that contradicts 1 Chron. 21:11...."Gad came to David....choose 3 years of famine"
Nadir asserts, then, that in the Hebrew there were no numbers. They always wrote out their numbers. Nadir, where are your scholars?
Regardless of what Nadir says....Hebrew does allow for numbers.
Sean....put up OHP #25
DeWette, In "Introduction to Old Testament," said, the symbol for 3 is easily mistaken for the symbol for 7. You can see by the poor drawing that I have made the similarities.
Nadir also brings us this problem....
In 2 Chron. 36:9 "Jehoiachin 8 years old when he began to reign"
In 2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin 18 years old when he began to reign"
Again I appeal to a SCHOLAR, DeWette, In his Introduction to Old Testament, said that the symbol for 10 in front of a number (like our adding a 1) was a very tiny character. It was seemingly dropped out of some later texts.....(Again, I refer you to my crude writing on the OHP...it is not at all in proportion.)
Nadir brings the next controversy....
2 Sam. 10:18....speaks of 700 chariots, 40,000 horsemen
1 Chron 19:18...speaks of 7000 men in chariots, 40,000 footmen
I don't know which is correct.
Keil: (Everyone is familiar with the scholars Keil and Dalisch) Keil said, "It is very evident that there are copyist's errors in both texts." We may never reconcile this scribal error. BUT SO WHAT! Whatever was in the original was inspired. A scribe made an error along the way. What point of doctrine does this change??
We CONCEDE ERRORS BY COPYISTS....LESS THAN 3% of all the text of the Bible have any textual problems...but, none affect anything of any importance. There are NO DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS ....
Here is the next big error that Nadir brings befor us....He tells us that Jesus sinned by breaking His own "rules."
Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be
guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before
the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the
Then he quotes Jesus in Luke 11:40"Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also?
Nadir tells us that in both places the Greek word "moros" is used. And that is where we get the word "moron" from.
Sean put up OHP#28
Let's compare these two texts....
In Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." The Greek word is Moros....that means, "dull or stupid; blockhead; used in the absurd...calling a name. Albert Barnes, in Barnes Notes, (Nadir, he is a scholar) said that this word speaks to the judgement of character rather than knowledge.
In Luke 11:40 Jesus said, "You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?
Nadir, according to the scholars, and looking at the interlinear, "foolish ones" is not translated from the word "moros." It is translated from the Greek word "aphron."
"Aphron" means "mindless, or stupid" also "ignorant, rash, or unbelieving" It means "unwise." Strongs shows it meaning to be "unlearned and unwise." Albert Barnes says this word reflects "judgement of wisdom rather than character."
In the first text Jesus is saying don't go around "name-calling." (i.e. "you idiot!" While in this second case He (being God and knowing their hearts) is telling them that they are "unwise and unlearned" or "ignorant"...they don't know what they are talking about.
Remember as Jesus also uses the word (or at least it is translated) "fools" in other places. Jesus, as God, knew their hearts and intents of their hearts. We do not. He know if they were "fools" or not....We can't know.
As for the difference between Acts 1:18 and Matt. 27:5....manner of Judas' death...
Neither passage excludes the other....Acts 1:18 does not say he did not hang himself...and Matt. 27:5 does not say he did not fall headlong and his bowels gushed out.....(possibly when cut down....possible limb broke) Who knows?? What we do know...
A. Each text is emphasizing something different....In Acts .... about to appoint a 12th apostle.... Here, in discussing what happened to Judas, the emphasis is on the field and why it is called "the field of blood."
In Matt 27 the emphasis is on the fact that Judas was so remourseful that he committed suicide....SEAN PUT UP OHP#31
In the Book "Illustrations of Scripture," pp 275-276 Professor Hackett who recently visited the scene said that it is not hard to understand at all....as he stood in the valley, and looked up to the rocky terraces which hang over it, and which he found by measurement to vary from 25 to 40 feet almost perpendicular in height, he felt more than satisfied that either by falling due to any number of events (such as wind, wild animals, etc.) or when being cut down by those who found him, that the end result would be as described by Luke in Acts 1 when Judas' body hit the jagged rocks beneath.
Also, there is no telling how long he hung there...what was his state of decomposition...
NOTE HOW FEEBLE THESE ATTEMPTS ARE TO DISCREDIT THE BIBLE...THIS IS THE BEST THAT HE HAS. Please note tomorrow's evidence on the Qur'an. Notice the QUALITY of proof. Notice, too, who it is that speaks from the scholarly and who it is that speaks from the "fanciful."