Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog

Archives
Download Greek & Hebrew Fonts Here

Talk About Lopsided...

01/06/2008 - James White

The scarey thing is, there are some who can't see, or refuse to see, how utterly lopsided this affair was. Thank God for Sam Shamoun. Pray for him!

20:16:07 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Sam Shamoun Responds to Shabir Ally's Closing Comments

08/20/2006 - James White

You cannot always respond to everything that is said in a debate, especially in closing comments. Shabir Ally made some comments regarding the New Testament's testimony to inspiration in his closing statements, and Sam Shamoun has taken the time to thoroughly respond to his comments here. I appreciate Sam's diligence in providing such thorough replies in written form.

14:50:11 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

We Continue with the Shabir Ally vs. Sam Shamoun Debate Today

10/18/2005 - James White

We continue reviewing the Ally vs. Shamoun debate today. I note we have a number of Muslims listening, for evidently, Sam has quite the fan club out there. Evidently, the Muslims have their own versions of Ruckman and Riplinger in their "apologetics" community. But, happy to have them listening. Maybe the Lord will be merciful and open some eyes to the glory of Christ. In any case, be listening at 2pm EDT.

09:02:37 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

01/24/2006 - James White

Today we began with the promised clip from Anthony Buzzard. When I asked for folks to respond, lo and behold our old friend Sam Shamoun called in, having heard this clip in its original context, and having written on the topic as well. Then we took calls on a wide variety of apologetic topics all the way to the end of the hour, which came pretty quickly! Here's the program.

20:55:58 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line: Sam Shamoun vs. Shabir Ally, the Bible and the Qur'an

10/11/2005 - James White

Despite technical difficulties, we pressed on with the DL today, playing the opening sections of the 2000 debate between Christian apologist Sam Shamoun and Muslim apologist Shabir Ally, as noted in the previous blog entry. I began responding to claims made by Ally in the second half hour of the program. This series of DL's will take some time to complete, but I believe it will be well worth the effort. Click here to listen to the first installment.

12:15:00 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Today on the the DL....

11/01/2005 - James White

Finished the Shabir Ally vs. Sam Shamoun debate today on the DL. Heard Shabir make it very clear that he does not feel he has to read the Bible in context--an admission that utterly destroys his credibility and his arguments, to be sure. Started the program with a message to Nadir Ahmed's followers as well. Here's the program. Open phones on Thursday at 4pm MST to allow anyone to defend the statements made by Shabir Ally. I will also be addressing some more errors in the Nadir Ahmed vs. Sam Shamoun debate as well.

11:07:53 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

More on Islamic Apologetics, NT Transmission, on the DL

11/29/2005 - James White

Today I covered the Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed debate a little more in-depth, in light of Mr. Ahmed's contacting me and my informing him he was welcome to call the program and respond to what I have said about his presentation (the invitation remains open). Sam Shamoun called in toward the end of the program as well. We covered the common use of equivocation by Islamic apologists with reference to the term "corruption," and looked at Surah 4:157, Jeremiah 8:8, and other passages. Here's the program.

12:53:31 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Wow, What a Day

06/22/2006 - James White

   OK, you know how you come into your place of business in the morning with an idea of what you are going to try to get done? And know the feeling at the end of the day when you realize that though you have hardly taken the time to take a deep breath you didn't get anything at all done of what you had originally planned? Yeah, that's today.
   OK, well, if you want to sit at your screen and stare and sort of drool and go, "No way...no, can't be...he just said that? What?" then don't forget today's "As Liberty Turns" installment, found here. I couldn't make this kind of stuff up if I tried.
   On the DL today I went over the Caner situation (prior to getting his final reply, please note), then took calls on that situation and, for some reason today, textual critical questions. Today's DL is found here.
   Finally, Sam Shamoun has written two articles I'd like to refer you to. Shabir Ally has put together some replies regarding our debate, and Sam has replied to them. Here is his article. He has also written this article which may be of interest to my readers. Well, almost anything Sam writes will be of interest to my readers for that matter, so here is his main index page. Bookmark it, and remember to pray for brother Sam. He knows the meaning of being "in the trenches" like few others do.

19:43:23 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Helping a Fellow Worker Out

12/03/2009 - James White

I will probably be looking for help in this area in the not too distant future myself, but for the moment, my MacBook is fully functional (as you can see on the video I will be posting, Lord willing, by the morning, from here in St. Louis). But Sam Shamoun, a tireless producer of in-depth material on Islam, needs a computer, and David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi of Acts 17 are attempting to put together some funds to get him one. So I thought I'd try to help by posting the widget David put together, that allows you to donate to the fund. This isn't a part of A&O, but I know some of my readers have been blessed by Sam's research and writing, so here it is:

21:43:44 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

10/25/2005 - James White

Though at an odd time, we packed the hour with more reviews of Islamic debates...continuing the Shabir Ally debate, but also looking at some others Sam Shamoun has done that truly make you wonder. Listen in!

17:57:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Caller Free Dividing Line!

11/03/2005 - James White

Well, we opened the phones for all those folks who would like to refute what I've been saying in response to Muslim apologists...and all we got was the sound of crickets chirping! Not a single call. Oh well, so I went over some material from Nadir Ahmed and Sabeel Ahmed presented in debates against Sam Shamoun. Here's the program.

16:02:01 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

10/20/2005 - James White

Continued the Sam Shamoun vs. Shabir Ally debate today, and even heard Shabir argue that Revelation 14 informs us that women will not enter into paradise! You have to hear it to believe it. "When Bad Jehovah's Witness Arguments Get Picked Up by Muslim Apologists." Sounds like a bad B movie, the stuff of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Anyway, here's the program.

17:58:41 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Zaynab bint Jash and the Qur'an

07/21/2009 - James White

Today on the DL I was joined by Sam Shamoun and we discussed the story of Zaynab bint Jash and the Qur'an. It is a very important subject in analyzying the Qur'an. Here's the program.

20:14:45 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Did Ahmed Deedat Truly Know Greek?

01/12/2008 - James White

Documentation of errors on the part of Ahmed Deedat, assisted and made even better by Sam Shamoun. Thanks Sam!

12:08:19 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

The Qur'an and the Bible

02/23/2008 - James White

Right as I am typing this the debate in Toronto between Dave Hunt and Shabir Ally is getting ready to start. I can assure you: if you spend the time to read the following two articles by Sam Shamoun, you will know far more about the topic of the Bible and the Qur'an than anyone will learn during the course of that debate, to be certain. Pay particular attention to the first portion where Sam provides an excellent recitation of Qur'anic texts relating to the "Book of Allah," and how this relates to the Bible. First article / second article.

16:44:03 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

On Next Tuesday's DL

01/30/2010 - James White

Wow, what a week. I spoke 14 times over eight days, finishing up with a long period of teaching with Sam Shamoun on Islam at the First Arabic Baptist Church here in Phoenix today. A very enjoyable time!
Next Tuesday on the DL I want to comment on last week's debates. Michael Brown did a program on Calvinism the next day, and I may respond to some specific statements regarding such passages as Genesis 50 and Philippians 1:29. Then I will respond to some of the comments that have been made regarding the Tim Staples debate. I will also look at the claims being made on the CA forums, including the confusion of one "Marco Polo," a Catholic who has attempted to interact with my statements (I would encourage "Marco Polo" to call in, but then again, we've seen over the years what happens when CA forum users call the DL).
We won't have a Thursday DL as I will be flying to Georgia that day.

19:46:15 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Some Quick Links

07/04/2007 - James White

   Trying to get back into the swing of things, and it is always a task to dig back out from the "normal things of life" after being gone for a while.
   First, here is an interview that I found fascinating and useful. Many do not realize that there are, indeed, many Islamic intellectuals. Here is an example of one, a convert to Islam, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf. I found him engaging and learned, but I could not help but wonder what he thinks about the fact that his religion has produced a situation where he could not even live in an Islamic state under Shariah law without risking his very life? Thanks to Sam Shamoun for pointing this one out to me.
   Next, I mentioned on the DL yesterday that the folks over at irr.org have put out a video on the Book of Abraham, the single greatest documented proof that Joseph Smith Jr. was a charlatan, not a prophet of God. The full video is now on YouTube, here. Given the current discussions of Mormonism, this is very useful. Here's the info on how to obtain it in DVD format.

13:33:09 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Beginning a New Series on the Dividing Line

10/10/2005 - James White

   I was riding northbound last Saturday morning listening to a debate which took place a few years ago between our good friend Sam Shamoun and Islamic apologist Shabir Ally. I have been collecting Ally's on-line materials of late, and had been horrendously frustrated at the men he has chosen to debate. Up until listening to Sam's debate, I simply hadn't heard anyone really take him on properly. Well, I truly enjoyed listening to the debate, and wanted to share the debate with the audience of The Dividing Line. But more than that, I wanted to respond to Ally's claims one by one, something even Sam didn't get to do, given the brief time constraints of the debate itself.
   Ally likes to use liberal Christian writings (especially Jesus Seminar style materials) to attack the Christian faith while refusing, of course, to apply the standards used by those sources to the Qur'an and Islam itself. Sadly, few of those he debates are prepared to engage that kind of apologetic. At times as I listened I could almost translate Shabir's Arabic-tinged accent into John Dominic Crossan's Irish lilt, for the words, in many instances, were identical. He also likes to throw out statements about textual criticism that simply make one cringe. In any case, there were so many statements made by him on such a wide range of topics that I felt taking time on the DL to review and rebut them would provide us an opportunity to address a tremendously wide range of apologetic issues, from textual criticism to the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the gospel, etc. So we will be following the pattern we have established in reviewing anti-Calvinist sermons in examining Ally's claims.
   If you would like to listen to the entire debate ahead of time to see where we will be going, they are available on line here.

18:53:57 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Two Quick Monday Morning Notes

11/14/2005 - James White

   First, Pastor Brazier has sent me the link to my February UK trip itinerary. Here it is. I can't express how much I'm looking forward to returning to the UK, and Lord willing, this time with a measure of health!
   Second, I got up last night and noted the screen was on, so I checked on the computer and found a note from Sam Shamoun. Sadly, that woke me up fully at 2am. Thanks Sam! :-) But the note was interesting. It was about the entry below on Hebrews 1:6 and Shabir Ally. Evidently, Sam knows Ally's argument on this passage, and filled me in on what Shabir messed up trying to say in the debate, and since it is quite interesting (and, despite his having missed references and the like, we want to respond to the best someone has to offer), here's the scoop:
   Shabir Ally said Deuteronomy 32:6, but what he meant to say was Deuteronomy 32:43. I might have been able to figure that out if I had looked at a paper copy of the Greek text instead of the electronic copy I used. Why? Because the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. includes along the side of the text citations/sources. At Hebrews 1:6 it includes Psalm 97:7 and a reference to Deuteronomy 32:43, where the LXX has a phrase that is a variant from the Hebrew. First, look at the comparison of the LXX of Psalm 97:7 and Hebrews 1:6:

Psalm 97:7 LXX	proskunh,sate auvtw/\| pa,ntej oi` a;ggeloi auvtou/
Hebrews 1:6	proskunhsa,twsan auvtw/\| pa,ntej a;ggeloi qeou/Å

Then Deuteronomy 32:43's variant phrase:

Deu. 32:43	proskunhsa,twsan auvtw/\| pa,ntej ui`oi. qeou/
Heb 1:6	proskunhsa,twsan auvtw/\| pa,ntej a;ggeloi qeou/Å

The LXX reading is actually a parallel:

proskunhsa,twsan auvtw/| pa,ntej ui`oi. qeou/

evniscusa,twsan auvtw/| pa,ntej a;ggeloi qeou/

I include the parallel to show that "sons of God" = "angels of God" in this context. Now, the LXX variant is verbally identical to Hebrews 1:6, and given the parallel that follows, provides a perfect match; however, the rest of the sources in Hebrews 1 (Ally assumes Pauline authorship, which I do not) are from the Psalter, and the Psalm 97:7 reference is probably the source of the Deuteronomy 32 variant anyway, given how close it is verbally as well. In any case, this wasn't even the focus of Shabir Ally's statement: outside of giving no original reference, and giving the wrong LXX reference, his assertion was that Paul's error was not only the citation of the LXX, but that the LXX had "Jehovah" and Paul misquoted it. But this isn't the case in any of the LXX sources: the LXX does not contain the Tetragrammaton (despite the wildest efforts of JW apologists to find a way to say it did). The term "Yahweh" does not appear in Deuteronomy 32:43, nor in Psalm 97:7. I think, if I can engage in just a bit more "he said this, but maybe he meant that" speculation, that what he might be referring to is the "elohim/angeloi" issue, that is, in Psalm 97:7 (96:7 LXX) the Hebrew is "worship him all you elohim," "gods," but in the LXX it is "angels," the LXX interpreting elohim to be a reference to angels. That's about the closest I can come, and in all of this Shabir Ally shows himself unwilling to apply the same standards to the Qur'an he does to the Bible. At least we can look at the sources used by the Apostles! You can hardly subject the text of the Qur'an to the same kind of examination (you rarely have sufficient context to do so, and it so rarely actually cites, directly, preceding documentary sources), so to try to prove the superiority of the Qur'an on this basis is once again fallacious.

08:04:56 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

A Quick Note

12/17/2003 - James White

What an incredible experience. Nineteen days on the road, the Stafford debate, the apologetics cruise, a respiratory infection, preaching at three different churches, all capped off by three hours on The Bible Answer Man broadcast. Just a few things, since I just flew home and have way too much to do to try to dig out from underneath all that stuff that accumulates over time (like when the dog eats the back door out of frustration at not getting to go with us).

First, for those asking us for tapes or CD's of the BAM program, we don't have them. Nor will we. CRI will be your only source for the program. If you want the program, download the mp3's.

Second, we should have the Stafford mp3's very quickly. Watch the ad column to the right of the main page for details.

Third, many, many thanks to the precious folks who worked so hard to make everything happen over the past almost three weeks, especially: my precious wife and kids, Mike and Sau O'Fallon, Rich Pierce, Warren Smith, Steve Camp, Phil Johnson, Mike and Jane Gendron, Sam Shamoun, Eddie and Tia Dalcour, and all the precious folks who joined us on the Zaandam like St. Dr. Paul "WallyBalt, AstroGeek, Hawaii 5-0 Book 'Em Dano, Hang Ten Surf's Up Dude, Goin' to a Luau, Turns Green When Angry Due to Exposure to Gamma Ray Bursts, Kung Fu Fightin' Astronomer, Gooberhead, Object of Research, Moon Doggie, 'WallyBallyLoopyGoopyParaDilllyBoopyAstronomergoober', Hawaiian Babes Screensaver" Price (inside joke).

Finally, yes, we plan on doing the DL tomorrow morning, live, call-in. Please don't melt our phone lines. :-)

19:00:00 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

A Quick Correction

04/15/2008 - James White

Yesterday I posted a very brief response to comments made by Jalal Abualrub on his blog. Unfortunately, he has responded by demonstrating that once again the context and intention of those with whom he disagrees does not seem to be his first concern, and this is quite troubling. I had pointed out that I had taken the time to ask a friend in Norway to transcribe the portion of Jalal's comments that I posted. I mentioned that a number of people had commented that they simply could not understand what he was saying. I played those clips for my class last night, and due both to Jalal's accent, and the fact that the clips were recorded on a small camera without the use of a microphone, it was, at times, quite difficult to follow him. This is a statement of fact. Sadly, Jalal has chosen to interpret this as "mockery" of his accent. I cannot begin to understand how, or why, he would make such an unkind and prejudicial assumption about what is obviously a simple statement of fact, and was, in reality, made in the context of seeking to make sure his comments were clearly communicated to my audience! And he did so in the context of personally attacking, once again, Sam Shamoun. I appeal to Jalal Abualrub to drop this kind of behavior and instead invest his time in a deeper study of the position that he so confidently denies. I believe I have suggested he consider the possibility of a debate on the historical and theological validity of Surah 4:157 and the meaning of the phrase شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ. David Wood has likewise offered some useful suggestions to further the dialogue. I exhort Jalal to consider a very different approach than the one he is currently using.

20:33:07 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Oven Study

07/20/2009 - James White

   That's the best way I can describe it. Oven study.
   I love living in Phoenix...for about 9.5 months out of the year. Clear blue skies, sunshine. But for 2.5 months out of the year, well---it's not enjoyable. We are in the middle of that period now. For most human beings, January/February is the worst. For us, July, August, and the first two weeks of September, are the pits. Tremendous heat that never stops, and yes, even humidity. Of course, if we didn't have this period, we would have 40 million people living here, and that would be bad! Now, I realize, some of you think all we have is a "dry heat." I just compared the reading locally for the dew point (which is a far more usable measure of actual moisture in the air) with that of a place famous for humidity, New Orleans. As I tap away on this blog post, it is just over 108 degrees here with a dew point of 64 degrees; in New Orleans it is 90 degrees with a dew point of 67 degrees. Do the math.
   So anyway, what happens is that the ground here warms up, getting to about 88-93 degrees down at the level where the water pipes run. That's why going swimming here right now is not refreshing: it is more like taking a bath. That also means it just doesn't cool down at night. So, even though I have been dragging myself out of bed before 4am, it is still quite toasty (upper 80s, low 90s) before sunrise. So, you get a nice 18-20 mph wind going and you feel like you are riding into a giant hair dryer. In the dark. It's great. (Don't worry: I have a very good headlight!).
   So this morning I headed into the darkness with a bunch of things to listen to. I had spent a bunch of time Saturday (way more time than I should have--thanks to whoever freed me from this today by picking up that Nano!) resampling the files I wanted to listen to to a higher speed. I was listening to William Lane Craig (he presented what he called a "narrow inclusivism" at one point---i.e., that someone who turns in "sincere" repentance and faith to "the Great Spirit" can be saved), Shaikh Yasir Qadhi (critiquing the Kalaam Cosmologial Argument---he even mentioned William Lane Craig!) and the recent debate in London between Nabeel Qureshi and Paul Williams. It was most enjoyable, if rather sweat-inducing.
   Oh, and don't forget tomorrow on the DL! We will be joined by Sam Shamoun as we will be discussing Zaynab bint Jash and the "revelation" of the Qur'an.

11:33:43 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Quick Note From the LA Area

10/29/2005 - James White

   Greetings from Ontario, California. I will be speaking here tomorrow and then getting back to Phoenix Monday and staying there for all of November, DV. Doesn't mean I'll ever catch up, but a month away from airports will be a true blessing.
   I do not regularly look at Robert Sungenis' website, but I saw a reference to it in Karl Keating's e-letter, and just found this article posted there. If the cited e-mail is authentic (it surely looks like it is), Matatics has taken the logic of Rome's position to its ultimate conclusion: and in so doing, proved that his conversion was an error. If following Rome's claims to their logical conclusion results in your rejection of the current Roman Church, then the arguments Gerry used for years to substantiate his conversion are proven wrong, are they not? It would surely seem so. In any case, there would be much benefit in pointing out the inherent self-contradiction in the response offered as well, given the odd positions Sungenis espouses, but time does not allow for such luxuries while traveling. It will be interesting to read Matatics' "manifesto" if he ever gets around to posting it. But do not hold your breath! Gerry claimed his book for Tan Book Publishers was coming out in the early 1990s, and it is still nowhere to be seen.
   Back to the Da Vinci Code on Monday, Lord willing...and finishing up the Shabir Ally debate on Tuesday on the DL. Oh, and btw...one other note. To the followers of Nadir Ahmed who are sending inane e-mails about how I am "afraid" of Nadir
Ahmed---please, stop wasting your time. Internet bullies bore me. When you come up with something meaningful to say, let me know. Start by explaining the error I pointed out in his comments in his debate with Sam Shamoun. Start with something other than acting like playground thugs. You really shame your cause with such behavior.

22:09:05 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Open Invitation

01/06/2005 - James White

The RC pep rally and general back-slapping rave going on at DA's blog has continued unabated for a few days now, though I think eventually even these folks will get tired of repeating the same mantras over and over again. "Wow, that James White, we sure have refuted him, haven't we!" "Yeah, sure did! Wow, he's as dumb as a bag of hammers!" etc. and etc. At the moment, the file I've created saving the comments is 65 pages long. And if there are two paragraphs that can be taken seriously, I'd be surprised.
Most of the comments are quite humorous. But a repeated theme, one poured out regularly by the likes of "Patrick," Jim Scott (read only if you are wearing asbestos) and Jonathan Prejean is that in point of fact, I have not been dealing with Armstrong's work fairly or accurately, and more importantly, that others have "refuted me." Even little Apolonio chimed in, sorta like, "Yeah, me too, me too!" We even had a Muslim come on and join the fun, fellow by the name of Josh Wilcox. Not an overly pleasant fellow, I must say. I'm looking forward to his debate with Sam Shamoun. :-) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

03:30:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

More Amazing Errors from Shabir Ally on the DL Today

11/08/2005 - James White

(Here is today's program, noted below)
   Someday I'm going to wrap myself around a light pole somewhere because I'm so amazed at something someone just said in a debate I'm listening to while riding my bike. Yesterday I was listening to the Morey vs. Ally debate while riding, and just about rode right off the bike path when once again Shabir Ally proved "use any tactic you want---who cares about consistency" is his modus operandi. You may recall his amazing statement to Sam Shamoun that he does not have to take the Bible in its own context: he can pick and choose verses, phrases, etc., at will, isolate them, take them out of context, etc., and it doesn't matter. To any serious minded person, this was an admission on Shabir Ally's part that you do not need to take his arguments seriously, since he is not presenting them seriously.
   I will be playing these sections on the DL today, but briefly, in the Morey debate at one point Shabir Ally shows that he knows he uses sources and arguments in an inconsistent, illogical fashion. In defending the Qur'an, Ally argued that you cannot use "Western scholarship" since that disproves both the Qur'an and the Bible. Now, while one could surely argue that point, immediately you are left asking, "If that is the case, why do you quote from Raymond Brown and all sorts of Western scholarship ad infinitum et ad nauseum in your debates against William Craig or others?" The self-contradiction is glaring, and utterly self-destructive.
   But later I was left gasping for breath, not because of how hard I was riding, but because of Ally's willingness to show either utter ignorance of the Trinity (a possibility) or, to grossly misrepresent it. At one point Ally again shows his complete lack of exegetical capacity in speaking of the incarnation and the relationship of the Persons in the Trinity. He asserts confusion on the part of Christians as to who the Father of Jesus is, whether it is the Father in heaven or the Holy Spirit (as if the term "father" is being taken to mean 'the one causing the incarnation'). Then he says this:

But I cannot help you with this kind of confusion, ladies and gentlemen, except to invite you to the truth that God has revealed to correct all of this confusion. Ladies and gentlemen, I noticed this confusion here today as well when during the prayers we noticed that some people were praying to Yahweh, and some were saying 'Yes Jesus, praise be to Jesus.' Because Yahweh and Jesus, according even to the Trinity, are two different persons, they are not one in the same. If you say that Yahweh is Jesus, then how can you say that Yahweh sends His Son? Who is His Son? Not Jesus?

I find it hard to believe Shabir Ally could possibly say something like this in a public debate. Surely any person who has done even the most basic amount of study knows that part and parcel of the proof of the Trinity adduced from the Holy Scriptures is the use of the divine name, YHWH, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Only by once again assuming unitarianism can Ally miss this vital point. And how could he possibly think that this argumentation is at all compelling to a Christian? A truly amazing example of "We don't need to study what you believe or accurately represent it!" Listen in to the DL for this statement and others, and your phone calls at 877-753-3341. Perhaps some folks will finally call in this morning to defend Shabir Ally's arguments? Some of the other Islamic apologists we have examined? We tried to find someone Thursday evening, but no one called. We will try again at 11am MST (1pm EST).

00:01:00 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Many Thanks, Brother Sam; An Apology to Shabir Ally; Why do Muslims Use Straw Men?

01/01/2008 - James White

   Following the debate in Seattle I invested some time in responding to some post-debate "chatter," you might call it, in the form of comments from Shabir Ally regarding the topics we discussed during the debate (which is now available in mp3 format, and Lord willing, in DVD format very soon). In any case, I have not been able to do any more in that arena as time has precluded my doing so, but Sam Shamoun has taken the time to produce a number of replies. Two are on the crucifixion (here and here), and two on other relevant topics (here and here). Thanks again to Sam for all of his hard work for the King and the kingdom!
   In light of the mention of Shabir Ally, I would like to retract what I said on the 26th regarding Shabir's upcoming debate with Dave Hunt. I do not believe Shabir is going to enjoy his time in that debate, to be sure. Indeed, Hunt's dogged refusal to listen to the other side may well result in such a confused mess that no one will have the slightest idea what either side is saying. One could only hope! But in any case, I said I was disappointed in Shabir for accepting the debate challenge. Now, on the level that Shabir himself has announced as his reasons for debating, I would still have to be disappointed, because he is not going to be learning from Dave Hunt. But on the level of being willing to engage those who present the most "common" types of arguments against your position, it is perfectly valid for Shabir to respond to Dave Hunt. I was reminded of this by the encounter with Nadir Ahmed and David Wood's mentioning that while surely Nadir does not present nearly as scholarly or thought-out arguments as Shabir Ally, still, responding to Nadir is useful because his arguments are more like what is found on the "Muslim Street" than those of Shabir Ally. And about that, David is so very correct. It is always good to meet the best the other side has to offer, and this is especially true in debating such groups as Roman Catholics, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet, one must realize that the Witness at your door is probably not going to argue just like Greg Stafford; the Mormon will not have all of the FARMS materials memorized, and surely most Roman Catholics do not argue like a Hahn or an Akin. So at times you have to deal with those arguments that are more common, and nowhere is this more true than when looking to encourage our brothers and sisters who are under persecution in Muslim lands. The anti-Christian rhetoric of Islamic states is rarely on the level of what you find coming from a Shabir Ally: it is much more in the form of what we saw in my dialog with "Muslm" in our chat channel, or what you find from Ali Ataie or Nadir Ahmed. And as distasteful as it can be to engage those who do not show a proper commitment to honest representation of the other side, for the sake of those who suffer persecution around the world, we must be willing to engage them. And so I have to be consistent, and withdraw my objection to Shabir Ally's debating Dave Hunt. Instead, since I know multiple people who attempted to convince the organizers of that debate to utilize better Christian representation, I will lay the real objection at their feet. They will get to clean up the mess, to be sure.
   Finally, I recently added a symbol to my "sig file" on my e-mails. Micah had been kind enough to produce some gorgeous signature files for me, and I wanted to add the cross/tricetra design (thanks Machaira!) with the Arabic phrase that reads, "Worship the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" to it. So one Muslim who saw it wrote back, rather mockingly saying that my Arabic is strange, because I say there is one, but then say that there are three. So I wrote back to this gentleman, who is fairly well known, and asked why it is that Muslim apologists, scholars, writers, etc., fail, very consistently, to address what it is Christians actually believe. Why the straw-men? I seriously wondered if this man could provide a cogent response, but all I got back was empty rhetoric. I will continue asking, for one thing is for sure, the fact that the vast majority of Muslims who deny my faith haven't a clue what they are denying is surely a major argument against finding Islam to be a religion that promotes a high view of the truth.

00:01:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Open Invitation to Zakir Naik, Jamal Badawi, Shabir Ally, and...

10/03/2008 - James White

Arabic Christian Perspective has posted an open challenge to Zakir Naik, Jamal Badawi, and Shabir Ally, to debate myself, David Wood, and Sam Shamoun. You can read about the open challenge here. I know I would very much like to engage Shabir Ally in debate on an Islamic topic, as I have twice defended the Christian faith against him. I would love to ask him if he can consistently explain the Qur'anic parallel passages where differences of language, sequence, etc, exist, in light of his comments about the Synoptic Gospels in our debate at Biola in 2006. I have sought to have Jamal Badawi debate repeatedly as well. And I realize that Zakir Naik is seen by many Muslims in India and elsewhere as their leading intellectual spokesman. I would dearly love to correct him on his many, many misapprehensions of the Christian faith.
It certainly must be admitted that it is the Christian side who is seeking open and scholarly debate with the leading proponents of Islam. I note that in light of the constant effort on the part of Muslim nations to stifle any and all criticism or rebuttal of Islam, we need to take advantage of our freedoms to engage in honest and scholarly debate while we can. There are many in Muslim nations who wish to use the UN to silence all "blasphemy of the prophet," which, of course, means all disagreement with Muhammad's teachings and claims, and given the fact that many in the West drop to their knees in the attitude of dhimmitude at the first sign that a Muslim might be offended, we are truly in great peril. Of course, the fact that Islam by its very teachings denigrates and denies the Christian faith seems to get lost in the discussion, somehow, so that in essence, what is being promoted by Islamic nations is a silencing of Christians and a granting to Islam of uber-rights to preach without opposition or challenge.

Well, whether the UN tries to silence us or not, we will continue preaching and teaching the truth. And I would like to add my willingness to debate two other gentlemen as well, who I believe, from what I have watched and read, are significantly more familiar with the Christian faith than the three gentlemen noted previously: I would very much enjoy the opportunity to engage in respectful, open, honest debate and dialogue with Islamic scholars Hamza Yusuf and Gary Miller. I have watched or listened to many of Hamza Yusuf's lectures, and have found him a very articulate spokesperson. And Gary Miller's lectures are widely available on YouTube and the web in mp3 format. I have read that Miller is no longer active in such fields, though I have not heard why this is. But since his materials are still being distributed, I am surely open to debate with him.
We have proven, repeatedly, our ability to engage in fair, honest, scholarly debates. I hope these gentlemen will respond positively to our invitation and challenge.

20:47:06 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

A Brief Response to Jalal Abualrub

04/14/2008 - James White

As I got into my office this morning after the events of the weekend I found that Jalal Abualrub had posted this article on his website. I have a class to teach in a few hours, so I have little time, but I wanted to comment on his claims as quickly as possible:

Mr White said last night that the Holy Spirit is within him. I challenge him to post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not only segments that make him look good as he already did. The Holy Spirit is about Truth, let us not disappont (sic) him, especially since the Holy Spirit is not within any human. I will post the entire debates for free, whole and entire!

   I believe Jalal is confusing me with David Wood, but that doesn't matter much. What I posted was from my Casio camera, taken by my good friend Beau Boyd from the front row. I do not have the video tapes of the debate to post. I do not know what is meant by "not only segments that make him look good." YouTube videos are limited, at least for us small folks, to 10 minutes and 59 seconds. I posted a quick clip, along with a transcription, before I left California (the transcription was necessary because Jalal's accent is causing a number of folks to comment that they cannot understand what he is saying). Last evening I grabbed two more sections, one of Jalal alone (is posting him speaking alone supposed to make me look good?) and one of me alone. These are meant to be nothing more than representative portions to give folks an idea of what took place, and to excite them about obtaining the video when it becomes available. I resent the insinuation on his part that there is something dishonest in posting these clips and even transcribing his own words so that people can hear what he actually said!
   Next, Jalal Abualrub's published claims in his own books were refuted in my opening statements. Amazingly, in a scholarly debate, my opponent admitted he could not back up his statements, but that he would in ten days on his website! I'm sorry, but since the claims I demolished were in his own published works, why on earth would he need ten days to gather some kind of support? Didn't he have that support when he put the claims in print? The fact is that 1) he put in print his ignorance of the Greek article and the proper translation of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives; 2) he put in print his ignorance of meaningful modern Greek lexical resources and the proper translation of the term monogenes; 3) he put in print his ignorance of history relating to Constantine and the Council of Nicea (please compare his comments with my article on the subject, found here). He did this before we ever corresponded for the first time, before we ever met. I did not force him to do these things, I simply exposed them for the errors they are. I invite Jalal Abualrub to remove these errors from the next printings of his books (with appropriate footnoting).
   Jalal says he will post the "encyclopedia" references he used. Wonderful. He has missed the point. The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a proper scholarly source. When you are in a debate, you cite your sources so that they can be examined. He did not do so. If he had, I would have been able to point out that, for example, many of his citations are in reference to the creedal formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, not to the biblical basis thereof. The fact is, Jalal Abualrub simply does not know what he is talking about on these matters, is very confused, and, evidently, intends to remain in his state of ignorance, for he has refused numerous attempts, not only by me, but by others, to correct his misapprehensions.
   Finally, Jalal Abualrub points out that I did not promise to provide some kind of list of resources as he did. He is correct. I did not. I do not have to. I actually supported by points in appropriate scholarly fashion in the debate. I showed respect for the audience in so doing. I said in my opening statement that if my opponent wished to dispute any element of the text of the New Testament that I had cited, I had the critical editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts sitting on my desk. If he wishes to dispute the translations I provided, then his time to do so was Saturday evening during the debate. That's what scholarly debates are about. I brought my scholarship. I leave it to the viewer to decide if Jalal brought his.
   Finally, I found this statement odd: "Next time, the topics will not be as general. Next time, I will have a bigger say what the topic and format is." I was not involved in setting up these debates. I would rather have cross examination myself, for example. But I was invited to participate in this debate only after problems developed in it. This came out frequently during Jalal's presentation, primarily in the debate with me, where he would make reference to "the man I was supposed to debate." Well, that man was Sam Shamoun. [It was hard not to chuckle, to be honest, each time he decided to go off after Sam instead of responding to the mountain of unrefuted facts I had presented in my opening statement, not only because it was painfully obvious he could not address my presentation in any meaningful fashion, but because Sam was sitting less than 60 feet from Jalal the entire time.] There would have been plenty of opportunity for Jalal Abualrub to narrow the focus, had he chosen to do so. I have no idea why "Was Muhammad a Prophet?" or "Does the Bible Teach the Deity of Christ?" are too broad.
   I am happy Jalal believes things went well. At least, I assume that is what "I think that I can benefit Islam some more through more debates" means. I would be happy to debate Jalal Abualrub on Surah 4:157 and the Qur'an's denial of the crucifixion. I would really enjoy challenging his rather, shall I say, "extended" translation, or interpretation, of the Arabic phrase شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ. I just hope that in any future debates, he brings his evidence with him in the first place, rather than referring the audience to his website ten days in the future.

13:02:10 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Another Shabir Ally Biblical Error

11/13/2005 - James White

Those who have listened to the Dividing Line of late know that I've been playing sections of debates featuring, mainly, Sam Shamoun. We played the entirety of his debate with Shabir Ally, and I've been listening to a number of Ally's other debates, mainly while riding medium distance runs on a bicycle (20 to 40 miles or so). Great time to listen/study. Anyway, I was flying down South Mountain (miss one of those corners and that would be a literal description) and I caught Shabir Ally doing an impersonation of Gerry Matatics. By that I mean he was doing the "throw out a statement with supporting citations so fast that only the best note-taker will even keep up with you and do it so that folks will be impressed (but hopefully won't question you about it later)" thing. Ally was trying to make yet another allegation of error in the Bible, this time on the basis of a citation from Hebrews 1:6, or at least that is all I can assume he was doing, since he didn't bother giving the reference. Instead, he referred to the passage in Hebrews 1 where "God said to the angels, 'Worship the Son.'" I can only assume he means Hebrews 1:6, "And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." There are simply no other candidates for the passage to which he refers. He then says Paul was quoting from Deuteronomy 32:6, which reads, "Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" No, I have no idea how that is connected at all. All of the citations in Hebrews 1 are from the Psalter. So, strike 1. But then Shabir Ally says that Paul did not quote from the "Hebrew original" but from an "inaccurate Septuagint version." And then, to make it worse, allegedly Paul misquotes even the LXX (Septuagint), because, we are assured by Shabir Ally, the Septuagint does not say "worship the Son" but "worship Jehovah." So let's add up the errors...it isn't Deuteronomy 32:6 that is cited, it is Psalm 97:7 (96:7 LXX) in Hebrews 1:6. The text does not say "the angels are to worship the Son" but "let all the angels of God worship Him" (the term "Son" is not found in Hebrews, so how Paul could misquote that is hard to know). Further, the LXX, despite the best attempts made by a few Jehovah's Witness apologists, does not make reference to Jehovah (Yahweh), but uses the Greek term kurios in place of the Tetragrammaton. So, though I would imagine Shabir Ally's presentation sounded real good to his followers, once again we are left in amazement at the simple lack of accuracy in his statements.
Finally, it is interesting to ponder Shabir Ally's implicit assertion that to cite the LXX is to automatically, it seems, disqualify the Bible from being the Word of God. This comes from the fact that in Islam, Arabic is the "pure" and "divine" language, and that the Qur'an truly only exists therein (all translations being inferior and mere approximations). The idea of using the language of others to spread the message of Scripture is foreign to much of modern Islam, which spreads its message most often by force of arms rather than convincing people through persuasion and appeal. Muslims see the spread of the Christian Scriptures by copying and translation (so as to bring the gospel to all men in their own language) a weakness, not a strength, and this goes back to a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam: biblical Christians and Muslims both believe God shows His great power by bringing people into proper subjection to Himself; but Christians believe He does this by taking out a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh, by changing the person inwardly, making His enemies His worshippers, not by the force of the sword, but by the power of the Spirit.

01:00:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

A Word from Mike O'Fallon

08/14/2005 - James White

   Back in 1999 (if my memory is serving me correctly) Mike O'Fallon contacted me and asked if I would speak at a conference at his church and then go on a 4-day, 3-night cruise thereafter. And so it started. Mike comments on how we started this aspect of the ministry.

   If you have followed the ministry of Dr. James White for any length of time, you have probably wondered “Why does Alpha and Omega Ministries cruise on an annual basis?” Well, the answer will most probably surprise you and might even inspire you to continue to strive for the cause of Christ in your own experience.
   As a member of a large Southern Baptist Church 7 years ago, I viewed a tremendous amount of confusion within our congregation regarding even the most basic of doctrinal considerations. What is the Gospel? What is a Christian? What is Salvation? None of our church faithful had Biblical, historical, grounded, workable answers to these questions yet they continued to push forward enormous efforts in “evangelism” without any real hold on the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. Doctrinal chaos only increased as Billy Graham and Promise Keepers marched through our area and dispersed a well-intentioned fog of ecumenical disorder among the evangelical community. As our church only increased in our population of “almost Christians,” several theologically-minded friends and I regarded the situation at our church as grave and closing in on irreparable. We recognized that if modern protestant evangelism was to truly grow a church as a result of God-ordained conversions of the heart and mind (in comparison to false professions of faith and emotional “decisions”), then it certainly doesn’t need to be ashamed or embarrassed about Biblical Christianity being distinct and particularistic, and secondly, that if the current ambivalence in evangelicalism towards theological reflection were to continue, then evangelicalism as a movement would most certainly succumb to liberalism and pragmatic methods of church-growth and shallowness in the discipling of new converts.
   My wife and I decided to approach our pastor about the idea of staging a conference dealing with foundational doctrine, apologetics, and cult evangelism at our church during the next calendar year which yielded the response, “Well O’Fallon, we’ll do it if you want to pay for it.” One of my consistent faults (which at times has been my greatest assets) is a Petrine exuberance that looks at every obstacle as a challenge instead of a defeat (as a former professional athlete, I’m extremely competitive). The last thing that I ever want to hear from someone is “we can’t” which can only be worsened by sarcasm from the one making the declaration. So, within the space of only a few hours, the genesis of an apologetics cruise was borne as a means to fund the land-based conference at my church.
   To make a rather long and detailed story short, our sponsoring of conferences and debates with Alpha and Omega Ministries has done well to encourage the emergence of sustained serious theological reflection in several different venues across the United States. Our conferences have had the pleasure of having men such as Dr. Eugene Merrill, Dr. Robert Thomas, Michael Gendron, Dr. Thomas Ascol, Phil Johnson, Sam Shamoun, Dr. Jobe Martin, David King, Dr. Eric Svendsen, Dr. James Renihan, and Steve Camp, all of whom have contributed greatly to the goals of our conference and cruise. During this same time, scholastic debates between Dr. White with Robert Sungenis on papal infallibility, Dr. John Sanders on inclusivism and open theism, Greg Stafford on the deity of Christ, Douglas Wilson on the salvific state of Roman Catholics, and currently, the debates with Dr. John Dominic Crossan and Dr. Marcus Borg on the Historical Jesus and the veracity of the Biblical resurrection accounts coming up in just a few short days in Seattle, Washington, have furthered the cause of a defined and Biblical faith. We have consistently believed that an informed laity (for lack of a better term) is a genuinely evangelistic church that should never compromise its role of heralding the Gospel in a fallen world. While I am no longer at the church where the conferences began ( I have since joined a congregation where verse-by-verse Biblical exposition is the distinctive hallmark of the church), our mission has been to bring to the churchman an understanding of core, orthodox Christian doctrine in a historical framework, an understanding of proper exegesis and the applied practice of proper hermeneutics, and to engage through debate both those within the camp of orthodoxy that with whom we have important theological differences and those with aberrant and heretical tendencies. This realm should no longer be understood to be the hallowed ground of seminarians alone, for the elect of God, men and women of every stripe or position in the church, are still under the command of Scripture:

“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” 1 Peter 3:15 NASB

If we are to seriously follow this command and “be ready” to give a defense “with gentleness,” then it is necessary that a goal for all Christians should be to know what they believe and why they believe it as opposed to the tired answer I have heard so many give in response to someone with serious questions, “you should talk to my pastor….” Our goals today in our conference and cruise remain the same as they have always been:

1. To focus both devotionally and theologically on the finished work of Jesus Christ
2. To clearly declare Scripture as the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice
3. To understand our faith within a Biblical and systematic framework
4. To be able to share and communicate this faith to those outside of the pale of orthodoxy
5. To live by this faith in both word and deed

To properly achieve these established goals, we must also be aware of the tendency to frame those that disagree with our theological conclusions in the worst light possible, or even worse, to misrepresent their views in order to demonize their belief or hermeneutic. I must admit that I agree completely with the assessment of Dr. White’s next opponent in debate, Dr. John Dominic Crossan:

"I am not too happy with... the recent shift from academic argumentation ('I will make your case as accurate and strong as I can before I demolish it') to political argumentation ('I will make your case as dumb and silly as I can before I demolish you')”

We should always deal with those that we have disagreements with in clear and honest terms without erecting positional straw-men to attack as we attempt to delude others into thinking that we have accomplished some sort of victory for God by misrepresenting one another’s beliefs. Sadly, I have seen this most often occur from those within reformed evangelical community and it truly grieves me. Those of us who are monergists, or reformed in our soteriology, should be engaging one another, not continuing to marginalize each other by creating fictitious and insincere positions of those that we disagree with (Credobaptists vs. Paedobaptists, Dispensationalists vs. Covenantalists, pre-mills vs. post-mills vs. a-mills etc). We must always be able to admit that we do have differences, and be willing to confront and engage one another in those differences, but always in the context of 1 Peter 3:15 “with gentleness and reverence…” As a community of faith, we should look forward to the times that we can come together in honest, sincere debate as we seek to work through the Scriptures and sharpen one another as brothers in Christ honestly should. If Scripture is our only source of true authority, then all arguments and positions should begin and end with God’s perfect and infallible Word.
All this to say that as we look forward to this year’s Alpha and Omega Conference, Debate, and cruise, try to remember this article and the purpose and mission behind the convention and debate. Please pray for all of us, particularly Dr. White, as we seek to be obedient and pleasing to Him in all that we do and say. I pray that in all that we do our efforts shall continue to be to His glory and for His glory.
Michael O’Fallon
Sovereign Christian Cruises

22:07:51 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Jeremiah 8:8: Abused and Misused

11/27/2005 - James White

"At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its officials, the bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs. 2 And they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and served, which they have gone after, and which they have sought and worshiped. And they shall not be gathered or buried. They shall be as dung on the surface of the ground. 3 Death shall be preferred to life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family in all the places where I have driven them, declares the LORD of hosts. 4 "You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD: When men fall, do they not rise again? If one turns away, does he not return? 5 Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit; they refuse to return. 6 I have paid attention and listened, but they have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle. 7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the LORD. 8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. 9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them? 10 Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. 11 They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace. 12 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. 13 When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them." 14 Why do we sit still? Gather together; let us go into the fortified cities and perish there, for the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and has given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against the LORD.

   This text is one of the most commonly cited by Islamic apologists---well, let me modify that. One verse is, specifically, verse 8, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.'" The assertion is that this is a plain, incontestable assertion in the Bible itself that its own text has been corrupted (and, by extension, that the Bible is not the Word of God). Is this what Jeremiah is saying?
   One thing you can almost never accuse Islamic apologists of is taking into consideration the context of any biblical passage when citing from the Christian Scriptures. We saw that repeatedly in reviewing Shabir Ally's debate with Sam Shamoun, even to the point of his directly admitting he did not need to worry about interpreting the Bible in its own context. And though I have heard multiple Islamic apologists citing the text in debates and on websites, I have yet to hear one who shows any knowledge of the context of the text and its function in the prophecy of Jeremiah.
   Let us first consider how utterly unlikely it is that the Islamic interpretation offered by certain apologists has any merit whatsoever. If Jeremiah were actually accusing the scribes of altering the actual text of the Torah, the Mosaic Law, so that it was no longer available or knowable, can we imagine him doing so in one verse, and them moving on? But surely that is not his purpose, for he continually assumes the possession of, and knowledge of, the law of Yahweh, holding those very people accountable to it. It is simply beyond the realm of logic to think Jeremiah himself believed that law had been corrupted and lost as well. Consider well that Jeremiah will later prophecy the writing of God's law upon the hearts of His people in the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33), but he says nothing about it having to be re-inspired or revealed again so as to be able to do so. And consider this passage as well: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Islamic Apologetics and New Testament Transmission: A Rebuttal

12/08/2004 - James White

Our good brother Sam Shamoun over at answering-islam.org sent me a link to a new article, updated on 12/7/2004, at www.islamic-awareness.org, written by M S M Saifullah & Hesham Azmy. As with the mass of Islamic apologetic material being produced today, the article seeks to undermine the authority and accuracy of the Bible while assuming the perfection of the Qur'ân. The thesis is that the Bible we have today is not what existed at the time of Mohammed, hence, the foundation upon which the Christian stands in seeking to proclaim Christ to Muslims is not sound.
As the article is rather lengthy (16 pages printed), I will respond to it over time. Few people these days have the time to sit down and read the main article, and then an equally (and probably longer) response. But posting shorter pieces may actually help communicate a proper response to a wider audience. Also, thanks to the new blog software, the entirety of the material can be easily obtained by displaying by topic (Islam). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:23:04 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Anthony Buzzard "Reviews" The Forgotten Trinity

07/13/2006 - James White

Sam Shamoun, Islamic expert extraordinaire, happened to notice that once again a cheap hit piece has been posted in the guise of a "review" of one of my books on Amazon. I truly detest the review features which are so rarely used for reviews and so often used as a major-league sized "comments" section (another good example of why comments sections, in general, should be viewed as little more than "ITIAs," that is, Internet Theological Ignorance Aggregators). It would never cross my mind to be running around Amazon flaming books and giving them "one star" just to drag down their rating. Few things are more childish.
This particular review was posted by a rather well known anti-Trinitarian that I have discussed on The Dividing Line in the past, Anthony Buzzard. On January 24th of this year I reviewed some of his comments in his discussion with Shabir Ally. You can listen to the mp3 of the program here. Sam and I demonstrated that his oft-repeated and key argument regarding Psalm 110 is simply fallacious on its face to anyone who actually knows something about the languages and history of the Bible. As I pointed out then, I have informed Buzzard of the errors in his presentation in the past. In any case, Buzzard's "review" of The Forgotten Trinity is not a review at all, and since it contains numerous errors of its own, I respond to it here.

John White's

James. James Bond.

Forgotten Trinity is a brave attempt to defend the non-biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He overlooks without comment the massive evidence which persuades scholarly and other non-Trinitarians that God is one Person, that God is the Father of Jesus the begotten Son (LUke 1:35)(God = the Father 1300 times in the NT and Jesus is given the title in a secondary sense twice for certain-- John 20:28; Heb 1:8.)

Excuse me? Overlooks without comment? Anyone who has read the book knows either Buzzard didn't bother to read the book, or, he is not overly honest in his comments. Anyone who has read the endnotes especially knows how often objections are met head on in that material. As to the usage of qeo,j (God) in the New Testament, those who have read my work know that I dedicated entire chapters to the subject, and fully discussed the issue in the book. Just what is accomplished by misrepresenting the book so badly in the first paragraph is difficult to comprehend. I have Buzzard's works, and if I were to post a review, one thing is for certain: my standard of review would be quite different than his own. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

19:03:55 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -