ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE ON: "IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF
GOD?"
An Islamic acquaintance kindly lent me this film with the
assurance he was not trying to convert me.
Even if he was, it would have been the greatest kindness; any genuine
religious person could have shown to another.
I was fascinated, and deeply concerned, by the issues it raised.
As a preamble I point out that Islam rejects: the Trinity, the Deity of Messiah, Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Death of the Lord Jesus for our sins: total mercy received by trusting the Saviour, and not by works of goodness, the Resurrection, and at least one Messianic Prophecy, which is applied to Mohammed; the Angel Gabriel of Islam seriously contradicts the Biblical Gabriel, especially apropos Luke1:46-55 Mary’s Song/The Magnificat.
OUTLINE:
1. The two presentations.
2. Swaggart's reply.
3. Additional parts of the video.
4. Endnotes.
* Indicates my own
thoughts, within the debate.
* In any honest debate about God, His revelation, and His
relationship to His creation - which includes mankind - there must be a
willingness to learn and change one's own beliefs: to whatever is shown to be
better. Do the two speakers show this
quality in the debate?
Swaggart warmly welcomes Muslims to his city; he admits to
not being a scholar, as Mr Deedat is, or informed about Islam - he is in fact
uneducated. He apologises for speaking
disrespectfully about the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon in a broadcast (see
later). However he does not believe the
Qur'an to be God's word, or Mohammed to be His prophet. Swaggart gives an outline of the Bible as
God's revelation to mankind, and speaks of his own
sense of God's presence in his life, specifically with
respect to this debate. The Bible was
revealed to 40 or so different writers.
* The names of the writers are not so important to the case
for the Bible, but the character of Mohammed is, quite differently, important
to the case for the Qur'an. Secondly: a
basis of any testimony, according to the Jewish Bible, is the plurality of
witnesses: one person cannot be accepted in serious cases involving the death
penalty - so certainly not in issues of the soul. The Qur'anic case should be rejected
immediately on these grounds.
The Bible was written by humans, but they were godly people
who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Swaggart holds to the King James Version, and in his writing has stated
this most strongly.
He quotes Sir Frederick Kenyon, one time Principle Curator
of the British Museum, as an authoritative textual critic, who said that, the
Christian can indeed take the Bible as the true word of God. Other notable authorities are also put
forward in support - professors of law, and history.
Note on screen: Yusaf Ally did not quote Kenyon, as Swaggart
alleged.
* This detracts from the case being made in the debate, but
Kenyon and the others still stand of course.
Swaggart explains the word "version" as a synonym
for "new translation" - answering a point raise by Deedat in his
books.
Note on screen: Version incorrect - question marks
questioning Swaggart's correctness.
John chapter 3 verse 16 is mentioned, but he uses "only
unique Son" instead of the KJV's "only begotten".
Note on screen: "Begotten" is in the King James
Version - "unique" is Swaggart's.
A brief comment is made about the ancient manuscripts of the
Bible, and the small differences, which are to be expected.
* There is a marked dishonesty here, because the word
"only" does appear, crucially, in the KJV: pointing to the uniqueness
of the Son of God. "Begotten"
is an obsolete word in today's English language, so it is not surprising that
few understand its meaning: for instance, when it is used in the Apostles'
Creed, which was developed centuries ago in the history of the Church. The note on-screen relates to a different
word (begotten – not only).
* There will always be problems of translation from one
language to another, as Swaggart points out apropos the Qur'an; for instance Pickthall's, "Qur'an Interpreted", in which the word
"translation" is avoided - one might say in a misleading and
dishonest way - is translated into particularly difficult to understand, archaic
English.
* For many Muslims the Qur'an is a closed book, because
their Arabic is only phonetic, and they are in no sense fluent, or able to
write creatively.
* Although the accusation is made that the Bible has been
changed:
1) There is never any evidence offered as to when, how, and
by whom. Swaggart raises this in the
question time.
2) In the Qur'an there is respect for the Bible, and the
copies of the text available then - in the seventh century at the time of
Mohammed’s endorsement of the Bible and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) - are still with
us today. (Surah 2:87, 6:91, etc)
* The point has to be made: that people, who make false accusations in important issues, are themselves guilty of a most serious offence, and modern Islam must be required to answer to this.
* The Qur'an was reduced to one "corrected
version" by Caliph Uthman, in what must be an act of academic dishonesty,
if we are to judge it by modern standards.
There were significant alternative versions in different parts of the
Islamic countries, which contained differences much more serious than
pronunciation.
* It is also clear that easily-recognisable Jewish and
Christian fables, and folklore, as well as a Christian heresy - a Trinity of “Father,
Son and Virgin Mary” - are incorporated in the Qur'an (Cf Endnotes).
Swaggart refers to a point raised in Deedat's writings: the
difference between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, which is explained by
Swaggart, as God permitting Satan to punish the
Israelites through King David.
* In the precision of religious truth, we should never
expect a crude simplistic understanding, in terms of human language and
concepts, to measure or understand Divine revelation. Even in scientific explanations of the
Universe's nature: Electricity for example, there are apparent contradictions
and paradoxes - if one thinks in terms of crude definitions, which show no
respect for complexity, honesty and accuracy.
Does Islam have any of these problems?
Perhaps its human origin is proven.
* Deedat, along with many others, fails to appreciate
Prophecy and its developed concepts: when God punishes, He often uses the evil
and the wicked to carry out His judgement, as in Isaiah 13:17-19. The Qur'an has been credited with over two
hundred abrogations
(changes of doctrine), as identified by Christian Arabic
scholars. (Cf Canon Dale; the three texts on drinking alcohol, in Pickthall's
Index, etc)
A second point of contradiction in the manuscripts of the
Bible available today, noted by Deedat in his books, is between 1 Kings 4:26,
and 2 Chronicles 9:25: 40,000 stalls for horses, and 4,000.
Note on screen: Is this a slight change?
* The vast amount of accurate mathematical data in the
Jewish Bible is ignored, and one cannot see a major question of doctrine being
lost by an error of this kind, which has apparently crept into the
manuscripts. Swaggart is unwise to pin
his faith in the KJV, rather than in the original Hebrew documents of the Old
Testament. The Chapter on Jonah in the
Qur'an, although very similar to that in the Jewish Bible, gives a different
set of figures: on a much weaker provenance.
Swaggart defends John 8:1-11.
* The real issue is: does the Holy Spirit want the passage
to be Scripture?
Swaggart defends the inclusion of a large percentage Mark's
Gospel in the other two synoptics, and the repeating of several passages within
the Old Testament: 1 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are mentioned.
Note on screen: 100% Plagiarism.
* The process of the building of the NT is open for all to
observe. Plagiarism is a modern
concept, when people have not a common purpose, and the motive is earning
money. Indeed, Deedat does not mention
that early Christian literature says that "Mark wrote what Peter
preached". Nor does he mention
that the Qur'an is, to a large proportion, made up of inaccurately told stories
from the Jewish Bible (and Apocryphal writings), and a few from the New Testament. This could be called distorted, misleading,
plagiarism.
* The story found in 1 Kings and Isaiah, is there because it
is crucial to both books. Sources and
other official national archives are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament
Histories; this is never the case in the Qur'an, which is unliterary in terms
of confessed origins. The claim that
the Qur'an came miraculously from God, avoids any need to relate to previous
revelation; in the Bible, however, there is continual cross-referral. One Qur'anic story of Abraham going with his
son to sacrifice, does not state which son! Is it Isaac or Ishmael? What about Deedat's standards on plagiarism
being applied to the Qur'an, at the much later date, when academic rules were
developing?
Swaggart points out a numerical difference in the Qur'an:
Sura 32:5 and 70:4.
* This is not a good point to make. Both are poetical references to God's
concept of time: A day is as a 1,000 years, and 50,000 years.
Note on screen: refers to the Qur'an being a different kind
of communication: "allegorical cosmic language".
* It is unwise of Deedat to make this point; written words
of both religions must face the same rules in an argument of this type. He cannot set a different standard for
judging his holy book. The continual,
and consistent, introduction of the arguments on the screen, is secretive, and
does not permit Swaggart the opportunity to reply. Deedat does not enhance the portrayal of
Islamic fairness.
Swaggart defends against the accusation in Deedat's
writings, which claim that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are
contradictory.
* It is true: the point that the first is Joseph's and the
second Mary's is not clear in the text - apart from the fact that Joseph holds
centre stage in Matthew, and Mary holds it in Luke.
Swaggart gives a very inadequate summary of Archaeology and
the Bible. He refers to the fulfilment
of Bible Prophecy.
* It appears that the Qur'an contains very little prophecy,
if any, by which it can be judged on this level. I have not heard of very much reference to
archaeology from within Islam; but suspect that interest in the sites for
Noah's Ark, on Mount Ararat, is being used to score the points: that the Qur'an
is more accurate than the Bible, regarding the location. This could be a big risk for the Muslims, if
the case is proved wrong. Hundreds of
books deal with biblical archaeology, and there are thousands of near-eastern
sites.
Note on screen: Swaggart had been set 60 minutes to speak.
* In the title sequences, it was stated that Swaggart asked
for 20 minutes for his introduction.
They finally settled for 40 - 30 minutes for the presentation, 10 for a
reply. The chairman also stated this
arrangement - but the captions ridicule Swaggart to make cheap capital.
* Although Deedat claims he respects Swaggart, he is rude to
him in practice. He elevates his
opponent's scholarship - one suspects to makes his own skills appear all the
more spectacular. Swaggart is anything
but scholarly, within the Christian community.
It is like Imran Khan extolling the skill of a Primary School cricketer,
and then scoring 500 runs against his bowling, before knocking the boy's
wickets down - seven times in two overs.
The calling of the video on screen, "The Great
Debate", shows how Deedat is trying to manipulate the event.
A reference to Paul's conversion is introduced.
Note on screen: on the issue of "goads" elsewhere
translated "pricks", in Acts 26:14, is inserted as though of some
great consequence.
* A goad is a pointed stick used to direct animals in
farming.
The two words are synonyms, and to score a point by
ridiculing the use of a reasonable synonym is bizarre and degrading to Deedat.
Swaggart finally speaks of his prayers for Deedat and humbly
tells of God's reply.
Note on screen: "If, it was God who spoke to me."
* This is a mocking reference to Swaggart's humility, in
being open to the possibility of a mistake on his part, and not wanting to
involve God in this mistake. There is
little respect for Christian and Western modes of thinking - Islam sees
humility as a form of weakness.
x////X\\\\x
Deedat begins with an Arabic quotation from the Qur'an.
Note on screen, the translation into English:
"Then
woe to those who write
The Book -
with their own hands,
And then
say, This is from God ...
To
trafficking with it for a miserable price! ..."
* Deedat implies it means the Bible, but the use of the
present tense would make it more apposite for the Qur'an.
Deedat then points out, that Islam is the only non-Christian
Faith, requiring belief in Jesus.
* Because there is so much in Islamic theology about Jesus,
it should be seen as a Christian heresy; in several ways it resembles Mormonism
– as Swaggart has mentioned elsewhere.
Within the NT, (The Book of Acts 24:14 and 26:5), the Jews call
Christianity a "heresy", and Paul calls Pharisaism similarly, for the
same reason: they are developments based on an original religious faith (Judaism).
* The Jesus of Islam is a blasphemous representation of his
character. The seriousness of which is
seen in Galatians 1:6-9, and 2 Corinthians 11:4. "I am astonished that you are so
quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning
to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into
confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if we or an angel from heaven should
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally
condemned! As we have already said, so
now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you
accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
The second quotation refers to people who preach "another
Christ", and is well applied to Islam. Blasphemy against Jesus can be forgiven; but blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit of God, cannot ever be forgiven.
Deedat points out that Muslims believe in the miraculous conception
of Jesus, and in his miracles, whereas many Christians do not believe in them.
* Here is sharp wit in Deedat's debate, he has the skill of
a barrister, and a similar mission: to exonerate his client, rather than find
the truth. There are most certainly
Muslims who do not believe in the miraculous.
Further: the Muslim belief in the miraculous conception, does not
incorporate the Divinity of Jesus, "who came down from Heaven" - in
New Testament teaching. Although the
Qur'an mentions a return to earth, a marriage, a death and a resurrection of
Jesus, Muslims do not believe in the Death and Resurrection within the
framework of his first advent. The
explanation, that he was too great to die, actually clashes with wider beliefs. Mohammad died.
Deedat is honest in admitting openly that he does not
believe in the Deity of Jesus; he believes he was "a" son of God, one
of the best, but not the unique - the only son of God. This is the main characteristic of every
heretic of Christianity, whether it is an Anglican Bishop or a so-called
Jehovah's Witness.
He goes over ground already covered by Swaggart; the Notes
on the Screen refer to "version".
* It is quite easy to see how, using rhetoric, he twists the
meaning of this obvious synonym for "translation", to mean
"another Bible": a spurious argument, which does damage to his
case. He uses extremely cunning
reasoning: that the old Roman Catholic version, called the Douay Bible,
contains the Apocrypha, and is not accepted by Protestants; and yet the KJV,
was authorised by the King, and "not God". He toys with the terms of the introductions
to translations - "ancient" and "most ancient".
Note on screen: comments about the ill-advised hyperbolic
Church reviews of the Revised Standard Version.
* Here is a marked case of the dishonesty of the video: the
Notes on Screen are no longer of the opposition to the speaker, but are still
controlled by Deedat, to make his points; and secretly, because neither
Swaggart, nor the audience, can see them, and it is no longer simply the debate
as arranged.
* Roman Catholic believers use other translations now, often
without the Apocrypha. The
authorisation by the King, is not part of the text, and reflects the importance
given to the Bible, at that time in British history - as with the Caliph related
to the Qur'an.
*Again he ridicules the different translations using the
words "goads" and "pricks".
* He misleads the trusting members of the audience and the
viewing public, by not admitting that these are synonyms. A good reason for the change is that language
is continually in a state of flux, and the older word has now taken on an
unsuitable meaning. He does allow that
translating the Qur'an from Arabic is difficult.
He scores debating points, by finding statements of the RSV
translators: that the KJV contains "many and serious defects",
"grave defects", "these defects are so many and so serious",
as mentioned.
* There is more openness among the Christian translators,
but as Jimmy rightly points out, a tendency to draw comparisons between
translations, by way of "sales talk", is unfortunate.
* One has to admire his skill: in finding Christians, who
damage their own case - by their carelessness, or liberal theology. Not all Western scholarship is Christian -
or Islamic: both faiths suffer in the hyper-critical approach of the secular
academic world (see Endnotes).
The KJV is the very translation on which Swaggart has pinned
his hope.
* Here, again, are cases of unwise statements by Christians,
and a disinclination of Deedat to admit that western thought is overtly
self-critical in nature.
Deedat ridicules Swaggart, and Christians in general, who
have deeply felt personal views.
Again he talks about John 3:16: "unique" or
"begotten".
* In no argument does he look at the original Greek - this
would be to weaken his case; neither does he look at translations into other
languages, such as French, which is clear and simple on this point. He omits the word "only" -
obviously "unique" is the synonym of "only begotten", in
modern English.
He has checked on 30 of Swaggart's publications, and he
notes that Christians hold differing views.
He quotes the Qur'an well: to illustrate the Islamic belief
that God does not beget.
* Islam is anything but monolithic: there is continual
fighting between differing elements, and power struggles within mosques, which
in Britain has caused street disturbances.
Saddam Hussain probably killed more Muslims, and destroyed more sacred
Muslim shrines, than any other leader in history, and yet he was supported by
Sunni Muslims around the World, even when he attacked Kuwait. Ahmadi Muslims are persecuted by the rest,
particularly in Pakistan; Deedat is probably a covert Ahmadi!
* His use of the term "animal" sex, about God, is
offensive and blasphemous to Christians, as it is intended to be to Muslims
watching the debate - and indeed gives them a false impression of biblical
doctrine. The doctrine of the Holy
Spirit coming "upon ... and the power of the Most High ...
overshadow[ing]" Mary, is far more dignified, and could equally refer to a
prophet receiving inspiration. (Luke 1:35)
He easily finds the words of the Creed: "begotten not
made" to be meaningless to Christians.
* Quite so: the wording is archaic today. In just the same way - fortunately -
Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an is in archaic King James's English; how
many people understand the word "beneficent", among British born, let
alone among those who learn English as a second language?
Swaggart had unfortunately said, in some context, that if
one word was wrong, then the whole Bible was false.
Ahmed makes a brilliant rhetorical point: Go to the experts!
* He chooses the experts, of course, who will give the
answers he wants!
He criticises the omission of 1 John 5:7 from recent
translations, on textual grounds.
* He avoids the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is
massively taught throughout the New Testament.
We must note: the Qur'an is not open to the integrity of textual
comparisons of this kind. The word “Trinity” is a scholars’ shorthand, does not appear
in the Bible; it is implied in the Old Testament use of a plural noun
occasionally for Divinity, and in Genesis 18:1 ff. Jesus’s Spirit, Soul, and Body were separated at death: to the Father,
to Paradise, and to the Tomb. It is also illustrated by the
fact that Man is described as being in the Image of God (Genesis 1:26). A story: an old man settled down to watch his
favourite television programme. He had
his warm drink, comfortable chair, and five minutes to go to the start. He fell asleep, and woke in time to see the
credits. [His soul made the decision, his
body said otherwise.] Several years
later there was a similar event. This
time he never saw the classic: he died. [His
body was in the right place; his mind made the decision; but his spirit went to
his God.] Here we see spirit, soul and
body. We see the strange definition of
numbers in the New Testament events involving demons being cast out by Jesus.
He similarly points to the omission of Mark 16:9-20, by some
editions of some translations. He finds
that the Gospels only mention the Ascension twice - once if this part of Mark
is dropped, whereas the donkey of the Triumphal Entry is mentioned often!
* "Often" is four times, to be exact: in each case
it is vital to the testimony. Here is
another deception of his Muslim listeners, and of some Christians. The donkey is important, in as much as it
features in the Triumphal Entry, as an identifying element for the fulfilment
of Zechariah 9:9, an important Messianic Prophecy. The Ascension is woven into Christian
doctrine throughout the NT: the final achievement of the event is usually
referred to: 1 Timothy 3:16, 6:16 -
"taken up into Heaven"; Colossians 3:1 - "Christ at God's right
hand"; Romans 8:34 - "he is at God's right hand"; Ephesians 1:20
- "seated Him at His right hand"; 4:8-10 - "ascended on
high"; Philippians 2:9 - "exalted to the highest place";
Revelation 5:6 ff "standing in the centre of the throne"; 12:5 -
"snatched up to God and His throne" etc. To admit to these two issues would be too
much for his rhetoric! The misleading
of his listeners is a serious point against him.
An attack on Swaggart follows - about believing "every
word" to be inspired.
* Again a major weakness in any debate: if the case is poor,
attack the adversary. You could find
similar careless beliefs and sayings among Muslims, especially in Folk
Islam. There are two columns in the
Mosque of 'Amr, in Old Cairo, that create a gap, through which only the true believer
can squeeze! The most popular time for
the test is on the last Friday of the Ramadan Fast, when huge crowds gather at
these miraculous pillars. (p 61, Laffin)
This is hardly a sensible or dignified belief.
Swaggart is again held up to insults: for claiming God spoke
to him; God did not even speak to Jesus - only the crowd were told, "This
is my Son."
* Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 say, "You are my Son, whom I
love; with you I am well pleased."
Deedat is quite incorrect. In
any case, Jesus made much greater claims of close communion with the Father,
than the occasional voice! God did not
speak through an intermediary angel, but directly many times, in the Bible.
Deedat indicates that vast amounts of money are made from
the sale of Bibles, $15 million on the first editions of the Revised Standard
Version, and by Swaggart, who asks for $1 million daily. Swaggart's book titles, quoted in part by
Deedat, show either a lack of wisdom in giving them, or a dishonest selection
by the speaker: dealing with alcohol, pornography, homosexuality, and
incest. Mr Deedat moves easily to a
further point: that the Bible is a textbook about sin: "Incest, incest,
incest!" It is a bad influence.
* His allegation, that the Bible is a textbook on sin, is
simply not true, and he grossly misrepresents the Scriptures, which never
discuss sin to revel in details, but ever to condemn it. I think there are eleven instances of this
particular sin in the Bible, the final one is a cause celebre, in which the
church is asked to deal most firmly; and yet with an offer of love and
forgiveness, if there is repentance ( 1 Corinthians 5:1 ff and 2 Corinthians 2:5
ff ). Mohammed would fare very badly in
this atmosphere, with his eleven marriages – including an under-age girl, and the
nature and sequence of them. Some see
prostitution, incest and polygamy in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Does the Qur'an mention sin in order to
condemn it, or does it fail to condemn sin at all? The Qur'an does duplicate the incident of
David and Bathsheba.
* He does not explain the use of Swaggart's money for the
purchasing of time for television evangelism, but implies it is for personal
use. The large amount obtained for the
RSV is a reflection of how many copies were sold; he avoids giving full details
of sales. Even the Qur'an is sold; my
modest paperback was expensive.
The Five Books of the Pentateuch are called the Books of
Moses, it is claimed he wrote them.
They mention the details of his death - some scholars disagree that he
wrote them. The style is not
autobiographical.
* Books named after him, does not mean, in the modern sense,
that he is the only writer of all the contents. The titles, in this case, are not part of
the inspired text, but traditional additions.
In academic circles there is serious doubt that Mohammed wrote the
Qur'an, indeed that he ever lived! (Cf
Endnotes) The Qur'an is not
autobiographical either.
Ahmed deals with a topic already answered by Swaggart: who
punished Israel, God or Satan? Who
punished the Jews, when six million died in the Holocaust, was it God or
Hitler?
The question of disgusting topics comes up once more, as he
shrewdly refers to Ezekiel 23, with its use of strong prophetic allegory. The South African Government banned a
leaflet which quoted this passage of the Bible. Deedat has a bet with Swaggart: that he
could not read it in public, if he cannot, then the Bible is not the word of
God - Deedat lost the bet and paid up.
Deedat claims the Qur'an has no contradictions. He returns to a ridiculous point already
covered by Swaggart, and fills out his talk once more: the two versions of an
historical detail - one giving the figure of 40,000, another 4,000 horses.
He quotes a Seventh Day Adventist commentator, Mrs Ellen G. White,
who allows that God permitted some errors and changes in copying. He lists Jehovah's Witnesses as producing
yet another translation, not accepted by Christians. No two manuscripts are identical.
* The Qur'an has three different opinions on alcohol, and
various attitudes Muslims should hold to non-Muslims. The Qur'an is much more recent than the Old
Testament, even so there are many re-definitions within the Qur'an; this is
especially significant, if one has in mind the short time span of its writing.
He cleverly plays on the term "According to", as
used of the Four Gospels.
* The titles of the Gospels are not part of the original
text. Differences of the manuscripts
are to be expected, for such ancient documents. No doctrinal issues are at stake.
* The Qur'an was contrived by the Caliph, who destroyed all
but one version - because there were so many different ones; how can we be
certain it was the right one, and that something was not omitted?
* Both Christians and Muslims hold their book to be the Holy
Book of God, but widely differing opinions are held by those who claim to be
loyal followers. There is a great
difference in size, the time taken to write each, and the number of writers.
* The Ijil of Jesus is called the Gospel of Jesus; but the
Qur'an was written 600 years after the events of Jesus’s life, and there is no
real proof of its being genuine - rather it has all the marks of a fake.
Deedat mocks Christians: claiming that they do not know what
Jesus preached. Mark 1:14 is a simple
statement; the texts of the Gospels are a little more detailed!
He has found an "expert" who believes that The
Gospel of Matthew might not have been written by Matthew Levi. Again he attacks the copying of Mark, by
Matthew and Luke.
* He makes no reference to the historical fact that the
adult Mark, wrote what Peter preached; he wrongly portrays Mark as being a mere
ten year old boy - casting an unfounded and unfair innuendo, by referring to
schoolboy copying in an exam, or for homework.
One could make similar scathing remarks about the different traditions
about how the Qur'an came to be written - on various pieces of material or oral
tradition, and perhaps collected later.
The fact that only 40% of Matthew is original material is of little
significance - at least it is accurate, whereas the Qur'an is often
inaccurately retold material from the Bible.
A sizable proportion of the Qur'an is shown to be borrowed material.
The two Genealogies are ridiculed - only 2 names out of 66
are the same, he says - why any family tree, if Jesus was the Incarnation?
* The two genealogies are there because, both mother and
step father are of royal descent.
Indeed, because he is more than human, the genealogies have a complex
significance: showing his point of entry into humanity, his Messiahship, his
position as son of the House of David, and his nobility in having the longest
of genealogies. Deedat's figures are
truly Qur'anic in their inaccuracy: Matthew has 40 male ancestors, plus 5 women
or relatives; Luke gives 75. The two
lists have 14 in common - Abraham to King David, inclusively. He typically ignores Swaggart's explanation.
A miraculous birth is believed by Muslims - a point already
made.
Swaggart is greatly flattered - which serves to elevate
Deedat as a debater, and is misleading to his Muslim audience
* Swaggart is not an articulate speaker, he is an
ill-advised writer, and knows little of Islam; it would have been wiser for him
to have invited someone more qualified: in reality, he falls into a carefully
constructed trap. Not that Deedat is
ever found taking any cognisance of the opposition's arguments.
x////X\\\\x
Swaggart's Reply
Sura 65:2. They are
"ignorant of the spiritual treasure they hold in their hands".
Jesus must be more than a Prophet - otherwise he would be
made out to be a liar.
A testimony of a Muslim converted to Christianity through an
exorcism. Whilst Swaggart is talking,
several distracting comments are displayed on screen.
x////X\\\\x
In an insert on the video it is claimed that the Qur'an is
the third and final testament of revelation.
* The final chapter of the Bible carries these words:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If
anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this
book. And if anyone takes words away
from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree
of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19. The significance must be taken to refer to
the whole Bible.
PS
* If the Qur'an is the third testament:
a. Why does it totally abrogate the other two:
in conflict with the normal process of the Old and New Testaments - the New
does not destroy one word of the Old?
b. Why is there no sense of the literary
continuum that is found in the two Testaments?
c. If there really are "three
testaments", why do Muslims not follow all three?
d. Muslims are not the only ones who introduce
another book - most heresies do.
e. Assuming Mohammed to be genuine in
representing his "revelation", the "Angel Gabriel" he met
with, must have been a deceiving evil spirit, and not the true Angel Gabriel of
the Scriptures. The idea of this angel
is taken from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures - where he is introduced -
and yet his "message" to Mohammed, contradicts his biblical
communications. Mohammed did not have
an awareness of the Scriptures to be able to discern the truth about his
experience. Paul pointed out in Galatians 1:6-9, not even an angel
should be allowed to alter the Gospel, which had been revealed to the Apostles. There
are two OT mentions of Gabriel - Daniel 8:16 ff and 9:21 ff; and two in the NT
- Luke 1:19 ff and 1:26 ff. These
references include statements about the Messiah and His Death, and His eternal
Divine Sonship.
x////X\\\\x
A brief reference to the Questions from the Floor
Deedat is asked if the original Qur'an exists today. He avoids answering directly, but claims,
with little conviction, that Caliph Uthman's original can be seen in Istanbul.
*There is no record known to me of a scholarly assessment of
any such document.
Swaggart gives an answer, that the one hundred and
forty-four thousand (Revelation 7:4 ff ) refers to Jews saved in the Millennium,
which seems a rather good answer.
Deedat was asked about the worship and love of God in
Islam. He compared the total abstinence
from alcohol and high moral standards assuredly seen in Islamic States, with
the decadent West - which he equates with Christianity.
*Prostitution
and adultery are rife in Muslim nations, according to a Christian Nurse who has
seen men queuing at brothels on payday.
False Christs and those who do not know Jesus will perform
miracles, so these cannot be taken as proof of spirituality. John the Baptist performed none!
* If Islam is equated with Saddam Hussain, how will it
fare? The Islamic record of justice,
human rights, tolerance, altruism, development, abolition of slavery, and
spirituality, is nothing the rest of the World would greatly admire. Virtually every Muslim State persecutes
Christians; indeed, tolerance, humility, understanding, and helpfulness are
despised and seen as weaknesses.
* Miracles are seen as signs of God's approval, when linked
with sound doctrine. Nevertheless, he
makes a good point, about false Christs etc.
Swaggart mentions that good Christians do not drink alcohol
Begotten" means to produce. To Muslims - who do not believe Jesus to be
the Son of God - he clearly explains the Gospel: the need to be made into a new
creation. Salvation is not by keeping
rules and moral laws, but through believing in a crucified and risen Jesus.
Deedat is asked if the Ijil is guidance to mankind. He quotes Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:21-28 to
show that Jesus was rude to Gentiles and had not come to save them anyhow. Also, he says, righteousness must be
exceedingly high to please Jesus: higher than that of the Scribes and
Pharisees.
* These are old tricks of deception. Jesus did, in fact, help the Gentile lady in
question; and likening Gentiles to dogs under the children's table did not
convey any rudeness, quite the contrary – people of her city were among the
first to keep dogs as household pets. Jesus accepted her impassioned argument. It was at the end of his mission to the
Jews, that Jesus commanded the disciples to go to the Gentiles. Eventually, this became the pattern of the
apostles' missions.
* The great righteousness required by God is His own:
credited to those who believe, like faithful Abraham. The greatest of "Human
righteousness", is quite insufficient.
Swaggart is asked to prove the Bible to be the Word of
God. His answer is totally inadequate.
* In the whole World, there is nothing, which is more
convincing than the Bible. Only the
holiest of men, were moved by the Holy Spirit to write it; and throughout this
process it is confirmed as God's Word by succeeding generations of contributing
prophets, apostles, and evangelists. It
is highly ranked by God himself: second only to His Name (Psalm 138:2 b). Both Jewish and Christian cultures contain
the giving of the Scriptures, and their protection, and influence to the
present day.
* The effect of the Bible on individuals, and nations, can
be judged. Archaeology has massively
vindicated the historicity of the events recorded in the Bible, surely
silencing most sceptics. The Qur'an does
not have this kind of continuum, or vindication. Indeed, a faith which claims to be Universal
is impractical in higher latitudes, both North and South, when one examines the
keeping of the Ramadan Fast - with a movable date, demanding no eating in hours
of daylight. The same un-universality
is demonstrated by its requirement that, in order to understand the Qur'an
accurately, all people must learn Arabic.
Deedat fails to deal with a question asking for specific
proof about: who, how, and when the Ijil was changed. He talks about something quite different.
Is there any mention of Mohammed in the Old Testament? Swaggart says none whatsoever.
* Not even Deuteronomy 18, and its vital context of
surrounding chapters, offers any hope here.
On screen comes the reference: Song of Solomon 5:6, which people, who
cannot check with the Bible, might readily accept. This is ridiculous; the passage is a
romantic love poem.
Deedat claims that all religions heal the sick.
* Exorcism in Islam - according to witnesses I have met - is
not carried out with authority, but by negotiation with the unclean spirits;
which speaks for itself!
Swaggart is asked for evidence that the Old Testament refers
to Jesus being the Son of God. He
quotes Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and shall call him Immanuel (God with us)."
* Hebrews 1 is a list of the Old Testament passages. "Son of God" is more a definition
of Jesus's divine nature, work and status within the Godhead, than anything
related to His mode of origin.
Both speakers appear tired by the long session and Deedat
avoids answering a question about the Torah and the Gospel being
preserved. He simply reverts to his old
rhetoric on incest and Ezekiel 23.
Swaggart does actually read the passage.
On screen there is a trick diversion - saying that a
different translation is being used.
There is a discussion about whether Swaggart could visit
Mecca to hold the debate there. Deedat
points out that, as with any country, visa qualifications would need to be
forthcoming; and Swaggart would not be willing to confess Mohammed as required.
Swaggart explains the Trinity.
Deedat ridicules speaking in tongues, and the Trinity - as
being bad mathematics.
Deedat formally asks for permission to circulate the debate
as a video.
Swaggart agrees: as long as no editing takes place.
An edited sequence actually follows immediately ...
illustrating the insults against Islamic people in Swaggart's replies.
* Any criticism of Mohammed or the Qur'an is taken as
blasphemy.
This requires a redefinition of the meaning of the
word.
"Blasphemy" is to speak disrespectfully against
God Himself.
Muslims do not see their own overt blasphemy in:
1.
Ridiculing what God has graciously revealed to mankind
in the
Scriptures,
2. Claiming that Jesus's gracious act of dying on the Cross
to save sinners did not take place,
3. Saying that Jesus is not who he said He is,
4. In disbelieving what God (who is much higher than any
angel) audibly said about Jesus. There
is rarely any sensitivity to these in discussions, or to the extreme
offensiveness of their attitude to Christians.
x////X\\\\x
Final observations
If the Qur'an is important to Muslims, why is it a closed
book to the many who cannot read fluently in Arabic?
It is claimed in the video to be the most positive book in
the World; many Christians view it as: a mishmash of identifiable inaccurate
plagiarised cribs, which has given to millions a second-rate morality, with no
message of grace, no offering of forgiveness in times of failure, and no Divine
grace to assist in the performing of righteousness. Laws to the Christian are to prove him
guilty and bring him to salvation by faith: to the Muslim, rules are an
uncertain, if not unattainable, way to a Paradise which is of a very
questionable nature: sensual, and not the total worship of God, as we see in
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Two of the most obvious ways of cheating in debate, are to
attack, rather than defend: Prove your name is ... Your Birth Certificate could
be a forgery ... and your Passport ... your parents could be in the deception
as well ... and the midwife ... ; the second is to distract the speaker, or the
audience - certainly the latter is employed, using captions which stumble
Swaggart's message, and promote Deedat's.
Polygamy would bar a person from any position of leadership
in Christianity (1 Timothy 3:1ff; Titus 1:5ff). This limits and condemns the founders of
Islam and Mormonism severely; especially when they claim a superior revelation
from God!
It is impossible to believe that Deedat is sincere: his barrister-like
approach is theatrical. A similar mind
to Deedat could similarly demolish Islam, though not honestly. A close associate of Deedat is quoted as
saying: "Even if one's case is weak and untenable, it is possible for
one's oratorical prowess to carry one through and sway the multitude in one's
favour." (A. S. K. Joomal, by John Gilchrist. ) As with several other lines of Muslim
debate, they would be wise to dispense with Mr Deedat's services, and find
someone else to argue their case.
"Criticism from within Islam is rare - and dangerous
... Some of those who have broken the rules have suffered grievously ... within
Islam so much is covered up and distorted in efforts to save face within the
Islamic community ... Amir Ali ( who wrote critically ) was lucky not to have
been assassinated." John Laffin.
The claim in Islam that the concept of God/Allah is logical,
clear, and straight-forward: whilst the Christian concept is extremely
complex. The simple idea is an
indication that it is the invention of a human: the intricate, witnesses to the true and
genuine.
Man is a tripartite being in Christian doctrine – spirit, soul, and
body; man is made in the image of God.
Spiritual beings can be one and multiple: as with the demons in Mark 5:1-20.
In Judaism and Christianity, God is close to His people; as
is demonstrated in these remarkable Scriptures:
Psalm 139
For the director of music Of David
A psalm
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when
I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my
going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word
is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
5 You hem me
in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge
is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go
from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to
the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on
the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there
your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say,
“Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
12 even the
darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
13 For you
created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was
not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw
my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious
to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to
count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
19 If only you
would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
20 They speak of
you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate
those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing
but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O
God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there
is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
1Peter 5:7 Cast all your
anxiety on Him [God] because He cares for you.
Matthew 11:28 Jesus taught, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
ENDNOTES
1. The following is
offered to illustrate where some experts who do not accept the authenticity of the
Qur'an, can be found.
A REVIEW OF PERSONAL NOTES TAKEN AT A LECTURE IN 1985, AT THE
MANSON SOCIETY, UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
Title of Lecture: "In the clear light of History -
remarks on the origin of Islam", by Dr Norman Calder, Lecturer in Arabic
Language and Literature, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of
Manchester.
Subject under consideration: the book by John Wansbrough, an
expert in Shari'a Law (Islamic Law), "Qur'anic Studies: sources and methods of scriptural
interpretation", OUP, 1977.
Summary of the main points
1) Mohammed may not
have been a real person, according to Wansbrough in his lectures.
2) The Qur'an has
connotations of the Fertile Crescent (Syria to Mesopotamia), rather than
Southern Arabia.
3) The background to
the Qur'an is a polemic between Arab beliefs and perhaps Jewish, or, at times,
Christian ideas; to define this more precisely: fringe sectarian, of both
Jewish and Christian ideas.
4) There is evidence
of a watershed event in AD 815 - year 200 of the Muslim Era, which required the
creation of strong laws and a unifying ideology for the Arab sheikdoms.
5) There is no
evidence of the Qur'an in its present form before this date.
6) Abrogation (conflicting
teaching, changing what has gone before) is an important factor in the
chronologically ordered Qur'an.
7) This is the
beginning of a liberal approach to the Qur'an.
The book looks at:
Revelation and canon,
Emblems of prophethood,
Origins of Classical Arabic, and
Principles of Exegesis +
Exegetical typology:
Haggadic (
narrative ),
Halakhic (
juristic ),
Masoretic (
grammatical ),
Rhetorical,
and
Allegorical +
Both the revelation to Moses and to Mohammed, are transposed
into the third person. [That assumes
that the Books of Moses are so titled because Moses wrote them fully, in the
modern sense of authorship.]
The approach of John Wansbrough is radical to Islam, but not
to scholarship. Indeed, over recent centuries, Christianity
has encountered similar destructive criticism in European universities.
All Muslim scholarship,
Western and Middle Eastern, is fundamentalist.
The origins of Islam are Mithrasic (ancient Persian
light-god religion) and Syriac Christianity, Nestorian (a 5th century heresy,
questioning the unification of divinity and humanity in Jesus), and Docetism (a
2nd century heresy of Jesus being an ethereal body).
Before the watershed date there was considerable redaction (organising)
and editing. There may have been an
early oral tradition. Before this date,
there is no evidence of its influence on jurisprudence or theology (exegetical
material) - it suddenly appears in AD 815.
Disputes over this kind of juristic literature, requires a secular
power. Literary criticism indicates,
that the Qur'an contains Rabbinic, peripheral sectarian, and biblical
material. It is made of numerous segments,
and is in the style of polemic disputations between Arabs, Jews and Christians
in the Fertile Crescent region: there is a geographical dislocation. Social content is strong.
The idea of ethnic superiority of the Arab, conflicts with
the universality claimed for Islam.
+ From Dr Calder's printed notes.
[ ] my comments
1.
John Gilchrist: "The Textual History of the Qur'an
and the Bible. Discussion of 'Is the
Bible the Word of God?' by Ahmed Deedat", Jesus to the Muslims, Cape Town,
1981, 1982 A serious reply to Mr
Deedat's book on the same subject as the debate
2.
Similarly: “Christ in Islam and Christianity”, Qur’an
and Bible Series No. 4, A response to ”Christ in Islam”, by Ahmed Deedat, 1985
3.
John Laffin,
"The Dagger of Islam", Sphere Books, 1979/81
1.
“Global Jihad” The Future in the Face of Militant
Islam, Patrick Sookhdeo, Isaac Publishing. 2007, USA
2.
“Not the Same GOD” Is the Qur’anic Allah the Lord God
of the Bible?, Sam Solomon with Atif Debs, Wilberforce Publications Limited,
2016, London
?
?
Christian books can be purchased
from www.eden.co.uk in Cheshire, UK
Currently Muslim people can look to
God to guide through visions and dreams, and Pray to Jesus for healing and
deliverance from jinn.
A remarkable article by David
Garrison can be searched for on my main Blog site about Gifts of the Holy
Spirit, Part One.
How do these passages relate:
Pickthall's, "Qur’an" Surah 28v26 Al-Qasas, The Story; and Old Testament - Exodus
chapter 2, and Genesis chapter 29 – arrangements for obtaining wives for Moses and Jacob?
It is good for both Muslims and
Christians to read the two books in their mother tongue: the Qur’an and the
Bible (particularly the New Testament), before any detailed discussion.
“The Classic Debate: The Bible or the Qur’an between Dr Shabir Ally and Jay Smith” on the Internet; and material from Pfander, including YouTube films
It is said that Muslim Academics find 20% of the Qur’an unintelligible; by contrast, the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, were written in koine Greek – the language of ordinary people.
In open discussion with a Muslim who is trying to convert me: 1) this is the kindest thing he can do – inform me of what he believes is of prime importance ... 2) I have sometimes said, “If you can show me that Islam offers more in bringing me close to God than Christianity does, I will become a Muslim today!” I may then ask if in Islam my sins will be forgiven, and I can be certain of entering Heaven at the end of life. The answer is usually yes to both questions. But do you have these two certainties? Well, no. There is some inconsistency here!
A group of us attended a Mosque for a most competent lecture by one of an elderly gathering of South Asians, on “Islam for Christians”. In question time I asked: Most, if not all the Suras of the Qur’an start with mentioning the “Mercy of God”; how do you explain the Mercy of God, in Islam? He replied by asking, what do you Christians believe about the Mercy of God? What a marvellous opening to recount the Kerugma.
The lecturer explained that Muslims believe that Jesus will come again. I made the point that when Jesus returns, He will be the “Last Prophet” (a title they love to give to their Prophet). Give them credit for having a sense of humour; they had a good chuckle at the sharpness of my observation.
Two young Muslims made these comments to me:
“You talk about God as though you know him.”
On holding and looking through a Bible, “It’s got love on every page.”
x////X\\\\x
x\\\\X////x
Written c. 1998, revised 2021 [I am sorry that my spelling has been found wanting.
The spellchecker has been noted and specialist spellings investigated – to the
best of my knowledge. Thanks for the critique.]
What should we
make of this?
Accessed Dec.
2021
Jay Smith and
Thomas Alexander discuss the book by Christopher Luxemberg following on from
his doctoral work on the Qur’an: “The Textual Analysis of the Qur’an”.
There are 25%
of the Qur’an’s verses which are called “Dark Passages” of the Qur’an, which
Muslim Scholars and Commentators such as Tafsir, Lisan al-‘Arab, admit these
verses are beyond understanding – only God knows!
However,
Luxemberg looked at seven test areas, and is convinced that he has made
remarkable discoveries: some good for Islam, other not. Using 10th century Syro-Aramaic
Lectionaries, after considering Arabic diacritics (definitive additional marks
added to letters some time after the Prophet’s day), and similar marks if
translating the text back to Aramaic, which is a close language to Arabic.
The result is
significant in re-interpreting 44:54, and 52:20, identical statements about the
rewards of Paradise – so dear to Islamic thought. It convincingly becomes: not a reward of 72
beautiful wives, but the comfort of white crystalline grapes – like “pearls still
in the shell”. Further the origin of
this thinking is clearly, according to Luxemberg, the popular 4th
century writings apropos Paradise, and hymns to the Lord Jesus Christ, of the
Christian, St Ephrem the Syrian (306-373)
No comments:
Post a Comment