I am sitting at the airport waiting to begin my journey to Australia (via LAX—I really do not like LAX) and I note that, to use his own phraseology, I seem to be “living in Yahya Snow’s head.”  I do find it somewhat humorous that someone who has been refuted so many times, has had so many of his arguments taken apart publicly, and who obviously listens to, or watches, every Dividing Line, would be willing to talk about someone else having a fixation.  I guess you don’t see what is right in front of you at times.  Anyway, Snow has been pretty focused on me today, it seems (I can promise—I had not thought of him for quite some time).  He posted a comment regarding what I said about the Muslim fascination with apostates and liberals, once again showing that at least he has no intention of ever “hearing” what I’m actually saying (thankfully, others do).  My point, of course, was that Muslims will use anything that can be construed as negative toward the historic, orthodox Christian faith (that, ostensibly, the Qur’an is addressing), no matter how inconsistent the source.  They will gladly repeat the interpretations of secularists or agnostics or atheists or whoever even when those interpretations are plainly based upon an anti-supernaturalistic bias that, of course, would be just as relevant to Islam as to Christianity. They will likewise elevate to positions of expertise those that, if they were fair, they would never believe if the situation were reversed.  So, some fellow who helped organize the cleaning schedule at the local mosque as a teenager would hardly be considered an “expert on Islamic theology” were he to convert to Christianity, but former youth leaders are elevated in just that way on the Deen Show.

But specifically, I mentioned the fact that Dr. Kirk is a clear liberal.  Not only has he abandoned any kind of historic or meaningful view of the inspiration of Scripture, but he has demonstrated this by abandoning a historic, Christian view of sexuality and marriage—and, I might add, he takes a view that no meaningful Muslim could countenance, either.  Snow seems to miss the importance of this, for Kirk’s work on Jesus is based upon the same “we don’t have to worry about a consistent view of, or interpretation of, Scripture” that allows him to embrace the homosexual agenda as well.  How can Snow miss that point?  I actually think he gets it, but chooses to ignore it so as to continue his agenda of trying to give his fellow religionists a reason to ignore the inconsistencies inherent in modern Islamic efforts at dawa.

He makes a major error when he attempts to deflect the inconsistency of believing Muslims using unbelieving scholarship by saying that if I were to be consistent I would need to tell people who disagree with me about any theological issue (he mentioned the extent of the atonement) to stop using my materials.  Once again we are left breathless by Snow’s ability to be…well, snowed by category and worldview errors.  How can he not see the Grand Canyon sized chasm between two people having different theological viewpoints on doctrine X and yet sharing fundamental consistencies such as personal theism, reality of divine revelation, etc., and his use of secular scholarship that begins with fundamentally anti-Islamic (and Christian) presuppositions?  I have no idea, but it is a constant element of his rather desperate attempts to smokescreen the field of discussion.

[And may I note, this is why I really cannot abide Yahya Snow even when I can dialogue with many others: it is plain to me he is only active to end, not promote, meaningful communication and discussion.  That is not a noble goal.]

I did find this statement rather interesting:

I think Licona will really open the door for Christians to start seeing a new perspective which God willing will point them to the conclusion Islam is right; the Bilbe is unreliable and the Trinity doctrine never came from Jesus

Anyway, time is short and the clock is ticking.  In another article Snow, whose fundamental incapacity to limit himself to any kind of consistent form of argumentation has been documented over and over again, attempts to project upon me inconsistency, this time in reference to Bart Ehrman.  Specifically, I noted the fact that Ehrman, upon being asked why he did not write a book on the Qur’an as he did upon the Bible, had replied wryly, “Because I don’t want to die.”  I’d post the video but as I said I’m waiting to board a flight and just don’t have time to track it down.  I’ve played it on the DL, so Snow has probably seen it.  He makes the wild attempt to accuse me of inconsistency by noting my statement that I would love to see Paul Williams express the same what he calls “honest” views of the Qur’an that he lauds in Kirk (i.e., statements of fundamental disbelief) in public.  I said that Williams would find himself in danger were he to do so.  See!  How inconsistent White is!  But…am I?  There’s a pretty obvious difference in the two scenarios.  Ehrman is not a Muslim.  The fact is that expressions of what we would call “liberal” views of Muhammad, the Qur’an, etc., are basis for serious recrimination in the Islamic world when they are made by Muslims or by religious minorities in a Muslim majority context.  Is someone seriously going to dispute the fact that acts of true violence have been perpetrated upon Muslims by other Muslims based solely upon allegedly “unfaithful” or “blasphemous” statements about Muhammad and the Qur’an?  I can’t get the images of a poor Muslim woman who was beaten and stoned to death in Pakistan simply because someone alleged she had said something “blasphemous” about the Qur’an out of my mind.  It is truly horrible.  But will anyone really say that Williams would not encounter a very different Muslim audience if he were to regularly teach that, say, the Qur’an has been edited and redacted, and that it shows a development in Muhammad’s thought over time, and that portions of it are merely human in origin (a pretty close parallel to Kirk’s views)?  How is that observation inconsistent with noting Ehrman’s mere dismissal of the idea of writing anything about the Qur’an because he doesn’t want to die?  Unlike Ehrman, I have written just such a book, remember?  The difference between the two situations is obvious.

Well, the clock is moving toward boarding time.  Basically, tomorrow (Friday) will disappear for me: I arrive in the early morning of Saturday.  But, I get that day back when I come home (a day that will be like 41 hours long).  So, jet lag, here I come!


Leave a reply

©2022 Alpha and Omega Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?