The Muslim debater, Shadid Lewis, clearly won this debate.
Shadid Lewis argued against New Testament (NT) reliability by
highlighting what appears to be be false ‘prophecies’ attributed to Jesus (p) in the NT, the
anonymous authorship of New Testament books, the differences or ‘evolution’
between the Gospel accounts and the additions in the Gospels (such as John
7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20).
Bob Siegel was off topic and presented nothing positive to
support his belief that the NT is reliable. Nothing. He was simply preaching.
‘Scribes wrote something stupid’
A quick contexualisation of Bob’s comments concerning the
scribes writing something stupid and then being corrected by later scribes. I
think people may make more out of this statement than it actually is. I reckon
Bob was simply referencing noticeable errors that scribes did make – which are
discernible and thus easily corrected. Examples of these would include dittography and haplography. These terms describe errors that result in
repeating text or omitting text. They frequently occur when a word, phrase, or
line begins with a similar string of letters (homoeoarcton) or ends with a
similar string of letters (homoeoteleuton), causing the eyes to skip forward or
backward. One example of haplography resulting from homoeoteleuton can be found
in Matt. 5:19-20 of the Codex Sinaiticus.* The first sentence of verse 19
ends with ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν and the end of the verse also ends with ἐν
τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. Thus, the scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus has
accidentally omitted everything from the first occurrence to the end of the
verse. The scribe of the Codex Bezae has gone even further by skipping from the
end of the first sentence of verse 19 to the end of verse 20 which also ends
with ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. [http://blog.ancientlives.org/2013/05/06/scribal-error-in-biblical-manuscripts/]
Bob Siegel gets desperate
Having offered nothing positive to support
his belief that the New Tesament is trustworthy he throws out the standard Christian
missionary (mis)claim of the Quran supporting the NT’s reliability. It says
more about Bob and his lack of arguments for NT reliability than anything else. Of
course, this old Christian missionary claim has been refuted many times over.
In fact Shadid has corrected Ravi Zacharias’ colleague Nabeel Qureshi on this
misdirection before:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/does-quran-568-ask-muslims-to-accept-4.html
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/does-quran-568-ask-muslims-to-accept-4.html
Bob Siegel and Shadid Lewis: Contrasting styles
Bob Siegel was off topic, unclear and seemed under pressure. Shadid Lewis was methodical, calm, on-topic and coherent. One can see who had the more comfortable ride in the debate just by contrasting the demeanours of both debaters.
Shadid Lewis' opening statement
You can view the entire debate here:
http://callingchristians.com/2013/09/13/debate-video-pulled-br-shadid-lewis-vs-bob-siegel/
Conclusion
Look, it’s established and recognised by
scholars (both conservative and liberal) that there are anonymous books in the
NT and there are examples of additions (tampering) in the Gospels. Would you
trust a dictionary that was of anonymous authorship and has a history of tampering?
No. Think about it…
The interesting story here is that
scholarship is agreeing with the Muslim belief that Jesus (p) never claimed to be
God but people changed the story after the event so as to convince people he was God. Interesting...
Related
Is the Gospel of John reliable?
James White and defending the NT reliability?
Christian Tampering of Josephus?
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Related
Is the Gospel of John reliable?
James White and defending the NT reliability?
Christian Tampering of Josephus?
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
31 comments:
Wednesday the 2nd Debate in Lenasia South Africa 19:30 pm.
Topic: "Can God Become Man"?
Venue: Lenasia Johannesburg at the “Taalimul Mosque in the Islamic Hall” hosted by Bashir Varnia & Brian Marrian.
14:00-15:00am: “What is Reformed Theology all about” at the Reformed Theological Department.
18:30-20:30pm: Debate in Sanlam Auditorium, NWU:
1. Is the N.T. a Reliable Record of Jesus' Teachings?
2. Is the Quran a Reliable Record of Muhammad's Teachings?”
Venue: Faculty of Theology, NWU, Potchefstroom
Friday 4 Oct at 9:00-11:30am: Dr. White & John Gillchrist - How to reach out to Muslims.
12:00-13:30pm: Dr. White & John Gillchrist - Gnosticism and the historical Jesus debate.
Venue: Faculty of Theology, NWU, Potchefstroom
Friday 4 Oct 18:30 pm: Dr. James White & Yusuf Bux.
Topic: A Discussion on the Trinity and Tawheed: A Muslim and Christian Perspective.
Venue: Council Chambers: Madibeng Building University of Johannesburg.
Saturday the 5th: 9am-5pm: Worldview Conference:
Topics: Homosexuality: Choice or Wired?
What Every Christian Must Know About the Quran
God’s Sovereignty vs. Free Will?
Q&A Session
Venue: Antioch Bible Church Randburg Johannesburg with Pastor Tim Cantrell.
Sunday the 6th: Talk @ Tembisa Church:
Topic: Jehovah’s Witness.
Time: 10am
Sunday the 6th: 17:30 p.m. Talk at "AntWoord" Ministries
Venue: Garsfontein High School Pretoria.
Topic: Is the New Testament Reliable. Talk with Dr. James White.
Monday the 7th: 6:30pm: Dr. James White vs. Dr. Shabir Ali.
Topic: Sin and Salvation in the Quran/Bible.
Venue: Erasmia Hall Mosque
Tuesday the 8th: 6:30pm: Dr. James White vs. Dr. Shabir Ali.
Topic: Did the Original Disciples of Jesus Consider Him God?
Venue: University of Pta.
Snowman is back. We were getting worried.
Just an observation I find it funny that the only debate Muslims seem to be commenting on and posting is the one with Bob.
You guys must really think Shadid did really poorly in his other debates to only focus on Shadid's clear loss to Bob.
@Radical
I haven't had a look at the 'other debates'.
Stick to this debate - it clearly shows the NT is not reliable despite the efforts of an experienced preacher/pastor/apologist in the form of Bob Siegel.
It would be interesting to see Bob's next debate - if he decides to continue debating. Maybe get him to debate Ali Ataie or Paul Williams (if he wants to debate a Muslim again).
Bob, email me if you want suggestions on future debate opponents...
@Snowman
You wrote...
"Stick to this debate - it clearly shows the NT is not reliable despite the efforts of an experienced preacher/pastor/apologist in the form of Bob Siegel."
My Response:
Shadid made it very clear that the Quran was not talking about the NT, the OT, or even the Bible.
Shadid made it clear that the Quran speaks of an Ingeel or in his words "The Gospel according to Jesus".
Shadid makes it clear that the Quran says this Ingeel was corrupted and in Shadid's words "Scripture was given to the previous people but this scripture can not be trusted."
Shadid makes it very clear that he has the NT, the OT, and the Bible sitting on his table.
Shadid makes it very clear that he does not have the Ingeel or Gospel according to Jesus sitting on his table.
Shadid also says at the end that since Mohamed is not found in the bible he is holding in his hand then that proves that what he has in his hands is not what the Quran was talking about.
So using reasoning we have to deduce that we can trust the NT since it is not mentioned in the Quran, since what is mentioned in the Quran is corrupt, and since we have the NT sitting on Shadid's table.
To put it another way, I trust in something we have, you trust in something that never was, and even if it was your god allowed it to become corrupt.
Thanks Shadid for proving that the NT can be trusted and it is the Quran that can not be trusted since we do not have what the Quran says and even if we did the Quran says it was corrupted.
Snowman do you only want to talk to yourself on your blog since you keep deleting comments?
One more thing Snowman you wrote...
"It would be interesting to see Bob's next debate - if he decides to continue debating. Maybe get him to debate Ali Ataie or Paul Williams (if he wants to debate a Muslim again)."
My Response:
Really, so you think Bob did a really poor job. However you want him to do more debates. But you don't want Muslims to debate Sam Shamoun, David Wood, James White and others.
Thanks for proving my point.
Radical, this is not a site fore you to promote another agenda.
As for other people's YT pages who are simply imitating a style of video-making that they got from this site, unoriginal. Not only that those videos are silly - that style of video making doesn't suite evangelical Trinitarianism for obvious reasons...
As for Hamza Tzortzis, perhaps I will churn out a blog post in the future.
/I don't want to babysit this blog post. Please try to exercise self-control in the comment section as I have little time to monitor such.
Thanks
Snowman you are the gift that keeps on giving.
You wrote...
"As for other people's YT pages who are simply imitating a style of video-making that they got from this site, unoriginal. Not only that those videos are silly - that style of video making doesn't suite evangelical Trinitarianism for obvious reasons..."
My Response:
So you accuse me of copying your style and of not being original. But then you say that this style that I coppied from you does not suit evangelical trinitarianism.
Thanks snowman for admitting that Christians should be held to a higher standard then you hold yourself.
How stupid. Those videos were 10x's better than Yahya's. In fact, I hope Yahya tries to respond to them. That way we can get more from RadMod.
@Radical
Well clearly some Trinitarians think Bob did a good job. Perhaps Bob thinks the same. Thus he may want to debate a Muslim again.
As for Shamoun, nobody takes him seriously thus people don't want to give him a platform. You can view some of his online spats here (over 50 posts):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun
White is due to debate Dr Shabir Ally and Yusuf Ismael (as far as I understand). So Muslims do debate him.
As for Wood, he has been debated many times over by Muslims. You can view a ton of posts here (over 40):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/David%20Wood
If you want to have a dialogue, stop with the insults and the self-promotion.
Snowman respond to what I wrote about Shadid
Thank you
@Radical
Yawn.
BTW for those who read the comments it's 'suit' - the internet is full of typos.
What did you write about Shadid?
How about you go over to Shadid's page/blog and ask him to respond to whatever you wrote? Would that not be a better idea?
Do I ask you to respond to:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun
?
What did you write about Shadid?
How about you go over to Shadid's page/blog and ask him to respond to whatever you wrote? Would that not be a better idea?
Do I ask you to respond to:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun
?
Snowman
A couple of things. It does not matter what Christians think of Bobs debate. It is you who thinks he did a poor job debating however you want him to debate other Muslims.
But you do not want muslims to debate Sam, David, and Dr White.
Osama Abdullah did a horrible job even by his standards in his hopefully what will be his last debates.
See thats the difference, we want to debate your best, you are afraid of our best so instead you want Muslims to debate Christians who you think do poorly and loose in debates.
Now on to Shadid and this debate.
You post a review of the debate and declare Shadid the winner. I point out where Shadid made contradictory statements, and even admitted that the Islamic Ingeel or as he put it "The Gospel according to Jesus" can not be trusted.
And your only response is go to shadids blog lol.
Yahya exposed AGAIN.
I think Yahya is a waste of time. He erases comments and clearly only wants to talk to himself. He cannot keep up with you guys. Let him be. His faith is weak. His confidence is low. He has beaten himself.
http://callingchristians.com/2013/09/17/cl-edwards-runs-away-from-muslim-challenge/
CL Edwards Runs Away From Muslim Challenge
CL Edwards who prides himself on being a Christian who ‘confronts Islam‘, has stuck his tale (yes, I meant tale and not tail, it’s a pun) between his legs and whimpered (hopefully the pun makes sense now) away from a challenge earlier issued by me, in calling him to pick up the pieces from his colleague’s (Bob Siegel) cc-2013-cledwardsdisastrous debate on the reliability of the Bible. It’s been almost a week and despite personally e-mailing him the challenge, he’s failed to live up to his hype of being a defender of his faith and instead has chosen to be a monk and remain in silence as the ashes from Bob Siegel’s firestorm continue to build.
I don’t blame CL, why would he want to debate me after I pulled the rug from underneath him in his first professional debate, and then embarrassed him with subsequent articles refuting his petulant arguments? Perhaps he needs to reconsider his field of choice, as he’s suffered two debate losses in a row, can’t stand up to a challenge to defend the book he believes in, all the while failing to support his colleagues in their apologetic disasters, he does have my sympathies.
CL, why won’t you defend the reliability of your New Testament? We’d all love to know.
Sincerely, all the Muslims you pretend to confront.
To the Anon who posted a site.
Why would CL Edwards have to defend the reliability of the New Testament when Shadid Lewis did an excellent job proving that the NT can be trusted?
Bob supporters mad cos shadid wins the debate
Why do the Christians reading this blog want to see a debate with Sam and co. All their "arguments" and questions are already answered here minus their rethoric and foul language. Are they the best that Christians have to offer? So sad... The people that are supposed to be close to God should not talk and act like we have sen your best Preachers do.
It's not about winning debates, actually Bart Ehrman has already done enough and is still doing to show where the bible changed over time. You can continue to argue back and forth, use rethoric and so on pretending that you are winning something, it doesn't matter and it won't change the truth.
once i opened this blog page at home showing David wood in woman's dress my children laught. Later I will explain to them that this was a sincere attempt of a Christian to show islam is false.
Could we even emagine our scholars or even daes behave in the same way as they do?
They are astray leading others astray.
Thanks Yahya for exposing them and keep up the good work. May Allah reward you.
From Minoria:
I have only heard the opening statements of both speakers:
1.Siegel is wrong in citing the Talmud as proof regarding Jesus.No scholar accepts it as reliable since it comes too late.
2.He seems to accept the totality of the Josephus passage,as it appears in Eusebius,which is simply an error.
3.Lewis cites Matthew 10:23:
"Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
It can just as much refer to the glory and miracle of the resurrection,the Son of Man coming from the dead, as to the Second Coming of Jesus.
As for the "this generation" prophecy,I have already given my view on it(it was conditional,based on a condition mentioned in a Q saying(50 AD)) plus other details,so I won't repeat it all again.
From Minoria:
Maybe Siegel will say this later on and if he doesn't he really should have:
"The Old Testament says the Messiah's name is Yeshua (Jesus)
FIRST,NETZER(branch) IS A MESSIANIC TITLE:
The rabbis agree.Why?Because the word appears in the following(ALL considered by them to be Messianic):
2 TIMES IN ISAIAH
1.ISAIAH 4:2-3:
“In that day the NETZER of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.”
2.ISAIAH 11:1-2:
“A shoot will come up from the stump of JESSE;from his roots a NETZER will bear fruit.The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him,the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,the Spirit of counsel and of power,the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.”
JESSE:he was the father of king DAVID(1 SAMUEL 16:1-13).
2 TIMES IN JEREMIAH
1.JEREMIAH 23:5-6:
“The days are coming,” declares the LORD,”when I will raise up to DAVID a righteous NETZER,a KING who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.This is the name by which he will be called:The LORD Our Righteousness.”
2.JEREMIAH 33:14-18:
” ‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.” ‘In those days and at that time I will make a righteous NETZER sprout from DAVID’s line;
he will do what is just and right in the land.
In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety.This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.’
For this is what the LORD says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the THRONE of the house of Israel,nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’ ”
TARGUM
When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity in 537 BC they no longer spoke HEBREW but ARAMAIC,very similar, like Portuguese-Spanish are today.So when the OT was read in Hebrew it would be orally translated/interpreted/summarized.In the 1st century AD it was finally written down,the TARGUM(Hebrew for “interpretation”).
SO?
The TARGUM says ISAIAH 53 and ISAIAH 9 are about the MESSIAH(today the rabbis say no).The Targum also says these ZECHARIAH passages are Messianic:
ZECHARIAH 3:7-8:
“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.
” ‘Listen, O HIGH PRIEST JOSHUA(NOTE:Joshua was high priest around 520 BC)and your associates seated before you, who are men SYMBOLIC of THINGS to COME: I am going to bring MY SERVANT,the NETZER.”
SO?
JOSHUA is HEBREW,in ARAMAIC it’s YESHUA(Jesus).Joshua-Yeshua are symbolic of the future,and it mentions NETZER(Messiah).
THEN….NETZER’S NAME=JOSHUA-YESHUA
ZECHARIAH 6:9-12:
“The word of the LORD came to me:”Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah.
Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, JOSHUA son of Jehozadak.Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says:
‘HERE is the MAN(NOTE:Joshua)
whose NAME is NETZER,
and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD.”
ANALYSIS
It says the NETZER’s(Messiah’s) name is JOSHUA.Simple.
Post a Comment