Title: *BRUTAL TRUTH DEBATE*: Christian vs. Muslim; Christ vs. Muhammad/Bible vs. Koran (Fascinating Listen) Source:
You Tube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVU3 ... ist&p=8DF2F55C1F8C5A75&index=2 Published:Feb 28, 2008 Author:Dave Hunt Post Date:2009-12-13 03:17:12 by Liberator Keywords:Christianity, Islam, debate Views:68323 Comments:164
This is a debate between Dave Hunt and Shabir Ally in Toronto Canada in 2008. Christianity vs. Islam.
Hunt's credentials and scholarship are impeccable as is his courage. As the author of over 4,000,000 books (of which three I own), you will see and hear him NOT mince any words about the deeply flawed Muhammad, and how deeply flawed the Koran is. No candy-coated PC-Speak here.
He compares and contrasts the Koran vs. Bible convincingly, with conviction and armed with facts. Chances are none of us will ever see another non-compromising debate of this kind ever.
This is Part 3 which blends seamlessly into Part 4, into Part 5 and so on. Hunt's politely yet firmly continues to delve into the stark differences between the two belief systems.
Will you answer the questions? Sure. But you'll answer mine first right? Because if you don't I'll refer to you as a "cornered weasel" for the next 50 posts or so.
I did not see this while I was working on my last post - I will respond after you read the comments I just posted.
Then I will be pleased to answer any and all non-personal questions your may have and I understand that you will do the same.
There is one conditions I am compelled to place on these proposed exchanges - This is to say that all exchanges will be conducted in a most courteous manner and without any resort to sarcastic ad-libs or comments.
I respectfully await your considered reply, and remain, with warmest personal regards, Tater
Me: terrorism is the tactic of muslims, Islam is the religon of and guiding principal of terrorist.
You: Islam is an insane murder cult.......nothing more,,,,nothing less. These defenders of this death cult are as dangerous as the cultist themselves and all are a threat to all of humanity.
Me: terrorism is the tactic of muslims, Islam is the religon of and guiding principal of terrorist.
You: I find no disagreement here. You are in agreement with my point that terrorism is defined and acknowledged as a tactic. And I am in agreement that terrorism has been a tactic used by some Muslims who feel they used Islam as a religious guiding principle in the conduct of their terrorist activity.
FTR - I very much enjoyed your commentary. Keep up the good work! lol
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
Way wrong. Muhammad had only one wife. His revelations came from God. He was recognized as a prophet by a Christian Monk. He was the last known prophet. He slaughtered no one. You can't even spell Qur'an. You are ignorant. Let's hope that ignorance gets you to heaven.
WRong! Muhammad had 15 wives,
Even biographer Muhammad Husayn Haykal tacitly acknowledged the superiority of monogamy when he affirmed that “the happiness of the family and that of the community can best be served by the limitations which monogamy imposes” (294). Muhammad’s relationships with his wives are themselves an argument against polygamy. The wives went so far as to plot against him. This is understandable in that Muhammad often ignored some of his wives, and avoided others on many occasions (ibid., 436). He adds, “Indeed, favoritism for some of his wives had created such controversy and antagonism among the ‘Mothers of the Believers’ that Muhammad once thought of divorcing some of them” (ibid., 437). All of this falls short of an exemplary moral situation in principle and practice. Even if polygamy, as taught in the Qur’an, is deemed morally right, there remains another serious problem. Muhammad received a revelation from God that a man should have no more than four wives at once, yet he had many more. A Muslim defender of Muhammad, writing in The Prophet of Islam as the Ideal Husband, admitted that he had fifteen wives. Yet he tells others they may have only four. How can someone be a perfect moral example and not live by one of the basic laws he laid down for others as from God?
The Muslim answer is unconvincing. Muhammad received a “revelation” that God had made an exception for him but not for anyone else. He quotes God as saying: “Prophet! We have Made lawful to thee Thy wives . . . ; And any believing women Who dedicates her soul To the Prophet if the Prophet Wishes to wed her;” but adds quickly, “—this Only for thee, and not For the Believers” (sura 33:50). What is more, Muslims believe (based on sura 4:3b and other teachings) that they may have an unlimited number of concubines, especially among those they conquer in war. This was, no doubt, a powerful motivation for success on the battlefield.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (507). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
You don't need a PhD to know how to be a Christian.
I'm not saying I know more about it than them either.
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
According to Aisha, one of his wives, Muhammad had only one wife in the beginning. That wife was Khadija. He was monogamous. He had a great love for her. When she died, Muhammad collected more wives. One account of the Qur'an says he had 9 wives. Another account states he had 11.
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
I'm not a god but I am the idol of one of my co-workers. He told me I became his idol when I worked the phrase 'hookers and blow' into a speech at a company event. Didn't get a raise that year. But I'm someones idol. Which is nice.
I cannot comprehend that. Hate is a pretty clear word, and we all know what it means. If someone screams "I hate you!" in someone's face does that mean "I don't actually hate you, but I'm more devoted to liking a different friend!"
If we do a search for the word hate in the NIV bible online, will not in these passages the word hate seems pretty clear as well.
Therefore, my question is basically: Where is the reference book that God wrote that says what he *actually* meant by several words since it's so open for interpretation?
Tater, we are not discussing the English language, rather the Greek and Hebrew in which these passages were originally written. Translators do not go to Webster's, but to lexicons. I have all the major lexicons and interpretator's notes, and have contributed updates to two major translations. I am going to show you just one of the interpretator's handbooks.
1:2–3 “I have loved you,” says the LORD: Here as in 1:6; 3:7 and 3:13, the Assertion element of the dispute is introduced by a quotation formula. In 1:6 and 3:7, it is the longer formula “says the Lord of hosts,” but here and in 3:13 it is only the shorter form says the LORD. Translators should be careful to maintain the distinction. In some languages it will be necessary to put the verb of speaking before the direct quotation, especially at the beginning of the section. TEV makes it clear who the Lord is addressing by adding “[says] to his people.” CEV uses direct speech without an introductory formula: “Israel, I, the Lord, have loved you.” Other languages may have a preference for indirect rather than direct speech, but in a book like Malachi which uses dialogue extensively, direct speech should be preserved if at all possible. In languages in which indirect speech is unavoidable, translators could say, for example, “The Lord says that he has loved you.”
The word translated loved is a broad general term appropriate to a covenant relationship. Translators should avoid words that have strong sexual overtones. You is plural and refers to the whole nation. GECL1 makes this clear by saying “I love you Israelites,” while GECL2 says “I love you, you people of Israel.”
This sentence constitutes the prophet’s opening Assertion in his dispute with the people. TEV expresses it very emphatically by saying “I have always loved you.” In some languages it may be more natural to express this with a present tense “I love you.” Translators should avoid giving readers the impression that the Lord used to love the people but does not love them anymore. But you say, “How hast thou loved us?”: There is a strong contrast between the Lord’s Assertion and the people’s Objection, so if translators have a choice of terms for But, they should choose one that conveys the contrast forcefully; one such example is “On the contrary.” You is of course again plural. The formula you say is used to introduce the Objection element in each dispute. See also 1:6, 7; 2:14 (RSV “you ask”), 17; 3:7, 8, 13. In all these places, what follows is a question and translators may prefer to render it as “you ask.” The form How hast thou … gives an old-fashioned feeling to the RSV. This is not in the Hebrew, where the second person singular is normal use when one person is addressed. NRSV uses the current English form “How have you …” as do TEV and most other modern English versions. In languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, us should be translated as exclusive. TEV and many other versions expand the question as befits the context to “How have you shown your love for us?” (similarly JB/NJB, NEB/REB, NJPSV, CEV). The people’s doubt arises from their lack of prosperity and political power. “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD: This sentence begins the Response. It has the form of a negative rhetorical question, and is framed in such a way as to show that the expected answer is “yes.” Thus it has the force of a statement, “You know that Esau was Jacob’s brother,” and so it will be translated that way in a number of languages. The prophet was aware that he could rely on his audience’s knowledge of the history of their ancestors (Gen 25:19–26). Esau and Jacob were in fact twin brothers, and some languages may require this to be stated. TEV restructures the question as a statement: “Esau and Jacob were brothers” (compare NJPSV, CEV, NLT), and in cultures where readers are not so familiar with the Old Testament, translators may choose to follow this example. In Hebrew there is no verb in the clause, and TEV has used a past tense “were” rather than the present tense is. A similar change may be necessary in other languages to avoid giving the impression that Esau and Jacob were still alive in Malachi’s own day. The words translated says the LORD are not the same in Hebrew as the words translated in the same way earlier in the verse. The expression that occurs here is not found anywhere else in the book of Malachi. Its discourse function is probably to help mark the beginning of the Response element of the dispute. It is helpful to begin a new paragraph at this point, as do TEV, NIV, Beck, NLT, FRCL, GECL, and ITCL. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: Although the names Jacob and Esau are the same as in the previous sentence, they now stand both for the individuals and for the nations descended from them, as is made clear in verse 4. TEV shows this by saying, “Jacob and his descendants … Esau and his descendants.” The descendants of Esau are the Edomites, that is, the people of Edom. The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated. Most English versions use these words, and run the risk of representing the Lord as acting in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. Although the words are used in other contexts of ordinary human emotions, the important feature here is that they are used together to give a sharp contrast, and carry the meaning “I have loved Jacob [and his descendants] more than Esau [and his descendants].” Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29:31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel. (Compare also the parallel passages in Luke 14:26 and Matt 10:37, the first of which says “hate” and the second “loves … more than.”) This sentence is expressed in NJPSV as “I have accepted Jacob and have rejected Esau,” and in CEV as “I chose Jacob instead of Esau.” ITCL expresses this meaning more blandly as “I chose Jacob and not Esau.” In languages where the use of hated is likely to be misunderstood by readers, we recommend that translators should express the meaning in some way similar to NJPSV, CEV, or ITCL. Paul quotes this sentence in Rom 9:13. Translators should note that in Hebrew there is a stylistic feature called a chiasmus, in which the order of elements within the two clauses is reversed to give an A–B–B–A pattern. The Hebrew order is “I-have-loved (A) Jacob (B), but Esau (B) I-have-hated (A).” The pattern may be seen in the following diagram: I-have-loved (A)
Jacob (B),
X
but-Esau (B)
I-have-hated (A).
In many languages such a change of order would simply be confusing, but in others it may be retained and may produce a strong rhetorical effect. Translators must consider the stylistic patterns of their own language in deciding whether or not to retain the chiasmus. See the discussion of this feature in “Literary devices in these books” in “Translating Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,” pages 6–7. Clark, D. J., & Hatton, H. (2002). A handbook on Malachi. UBS handbook series (373–375). New York: United Bible Societies.
... The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated ...
... Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29:31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel ...
Thanks for taking time to provide me with the comprehensive explanation. After reading your explanation twice, I am still having a problem in understanding. I can easily get the "love" part, but I fail to see or understand how the word "hate" translates into "love."
It may be so simple that I am missing it, but as hard as I try and want it to read that way - I can't get the meaning of "hate" to confer the feeling of "love."
There is no doubt you can see the true meaning ... I just cannot and it is confusing to me. I don't like to be confused, I am a person who searches for comprehension and true meaning.
Thanks for trying ... and if you can furnish any further amplification without wasting too much of your time - I will gladly read it to learn.
Repeating: It really bothers me that I don't see what you are seeing.
P.S. - May I express my deep appreciation to you for taking the time to communicate with me. You are only the second person I have found on this fourm, albeit it a short time I have been here, who takes a position of sharing information and understanding the view point of others.
It was indeed troubling me to see information and to express my point of view opinion only to be repeatedly attacked again and again by blind hatred from people whom I believe consider themselves Christians.
Their action finally drove me to the point of attacking fire with fire and word with word - and that is not me. I finally realized that and stopped the exchange.
The purpose of this missive is to again thank you for your civil consideration and courteous response to my post. You are a person I can easily learn to like and to trust. The highest compliment I can pay you, with the greatest respect, is that from this first encouter I see you as the Christian I wish to see all Christians be.
Mel, thank you also for your courteous exchanges and enlightening contributions.
I wish you both well.
Respectfully, Tater
How'd you find out about this stuff? -- Huntoon I listened. – Caine
Here is a list of wives of Mohammed by the Muslim scholar Ali Dashti. He probably based much of this on an earlier list in the History of al-Tabari vol.9 p.126-241. It should be mentioned that scholars and Hadiths are not entirely agreed on the wives of Mohammed. For example some hadiths (not Bukhari or Sahih Muslim) mention a couple of wives of Mohammed that he divorced, and these are not shown here. Nonetheless, Ali Dashti’s list, while perhaps not entirely agreed upon as being comprehensive, shows many of the wives. Following this is the evidence from the hadiths, independent of Ali Dashti, for these relationships. 1. Khadija/Khadijah bint Khuwailid/Khywaylid - died first 2. Sauda/Sawda bint Zam’a 3. 'Aisha/Aesha/’A’ishah - 8 to 9 yrs old, 2nd wife 'Aisha's Slaves 'Aisha and the Battle of the Camel 4. Omm/’Umm Salama/Salamah 5. Hafsa/Hafsah 6. Zaynab/Zainab of Jahsh 7. Juwairiya/Jowayriya bint Harith (captive)
9. Safiya/Safiyya bint Huyai/Huyayy bint Akhtab (captive) 10. Maymuna/Maimuna of Hareth 11. Fatima/Fatema/Fatimah (briefly) 12. Hend/Hind (widow) 13. Asma of Saba (Sana bint Asma') 14. Zaynab of Khozayma 15. Habla? 16. Divorced Asma of Noman / bint al-Nu’man ¾slaves / concubines ¾ 17. Mary the Copt/Christian 18. Rayhana/Raihana/Rayhanah bint Zayd/Zaid ¾uncertain relationship - 19. Divorced Omm Sharik 20. Maymuna/Maimuna (slave girl?) 21. Zaynab/Zainab the third? 22. Khawla / Khawlah 23. Divorced Mulaykah bint Dawud 24. Divorced al-Shanba’ bint ‘Amr 25. Divorced al-‘Aliyyah 26. Divorced ‘Amrah bint Yazid 27. Divorced an Unnamed Woman 28. Qutaylah bint Qays (died right away) 29. Sana bint Sufyan 30. Sharaf bint Khalifah 31. Women of Mohammed’s Right Hand Mohammed Turned Some Women Down Some Women Turned Mohammed Down
¾ Ali Dashti missed at least nine possible other wives.
Several years ago my best friend debated this issue with a skeptic. I cannot post the complete debate here, but will provide excerpts"
Dear Readers,
As I'm sure most of you have now guessed, Dennis SnakeViper("Hyper")Piper has no desire to look at the actual evidence, or the actual reasons behind the use of the word "hate" in the translation into English, OR the reality of what I did in posting the analogy. He MUST avoid that analogy, he MUST claim that it is a straw man because, IF he were to actually examine it, his argument would start to crumble. Analyzing an interpretive method by applying it in a comparative manner between two different words with similar linguistic characteristics is a VALID one, NOT a straw man. WERE I using this in a straw man fashion, I would STILL be arguing on and on about "love." I'm not, if you'll notice. It is DENNIS who is continuing to harp on my using the analogy, hence illustrating that HE is the one who is trying to deflect attention away from the analogy itself -- it is DENNIS who is playing with scare cros, in hopes that no one will notice what's REALLY behind the curtains. Frankly, I have addressed this enough times (with sources to back me up -- remember, Dennis is functioning with only his own opinion here; he has no sources to back up his claim that what I did was not valid) that I don't need to say any more about it. He will continue to protest, I'm sure, but in so doing he is only driving the nails even deeper into the coffin of his illusion.
The same is true for research on this subject in general. Were Dennis to actually examine the Greek, he would discover that the Greek word for undifferentiated hate is: "kedos," NOT "miseo." Now, had the author of Luke's Gospel used the word "kedos," THEN Dennis would be correct ... Jesus would have been, in effect, telling his Disciples to emotionally hate their parents, their families, and THEMSELVES. But, NO, the far MORE differentiated word "miseo" is used here. And, as the VAST MAJORITY of linguistic commentators have shown (should I start posting more examples ... even though they would be ignored by Dennis?), "miseo" should NOT be understood as woodenly as simple emotional "hate." The Metzger remarks from his commentary on the translation of the NRSV (which I posted a few messages back and which Dennis conveniently ignored) apply quite well here. Dr. Elwyn Tilden, who was the other translation editor for the Gospels in the NRSV, also remarked on the Luke verse, highlighting quite clearly that "miseo" is translated "hate" *because* there is no other single word in English that even comes close to what "miseo" ACTUALLY means in THIS context.
<<... In this particular case, the essential meaning of "miseo" is contained only imperfectly in the English word "hate," and especially not in the application of this context. As the context indicates, Jesus is speaking not of emotional hatred, but of orientational hatred: if the family comes in the way of following Jesus, one is to treat one's family as if they were the object of hatred by cutting off relations. "Psychological" hatred is not indicated here.>> (Metzger, Bruce. "A Textual Commentary on the NRSV." New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 172)
Let us step back a moment and see where we are at the end of this game.
1. Dennis wants to claim that "miseo" should be understood as if it were undifferentiated, emotional hatred (the kind of emotional hatred that results in violence). In other words, he wants us to toss out all linguistic issues and act as if "miseo" were actually "kedos." (In anticipation of the standard hew and cry from Dennis, let it be known that he hasn't made reference to "kedos," but in effect this is what he is wanting us to do, whether he knows it or not [and he doesn't].) His rationale for so demanding is the Thayer Lexicon, Strongs' (hmmmm, <<3404 miseo (mis-eh'-o); from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less: KJV-- hate (- ful).>>) , and a wooden, uncritical reading of the majority of English translations -- uncritical in that he hasn't bothered to look into WHY they use "hate" here. He just assumes that the reason is obvious.
2. I, on the other hand, following the lead of most scholars, have asserted that the word "miseo" means "hate" in a basic, unnuanced meaning, but when nuanced according to context and grammar, contains either lesser or greater qualities. Hence, in some contexts (and some grammar constructions) it actually has more or less emotional content than in others. This is a FACT, not an opinion. ANY extensive (critical) commentary will tell you this. EVEN Strongs tells us this (in a part that Snake ignored). The word "miseo" doesn't have an *exact* English match for our context. Therefore, accepting just the surface meaning of the translation is deceptive. The context must be allowed to help interpret it. Dennis claims that he is doing this, but he is not. His background in Fundamentalist literalism (of various breeds) is still functioning within him today. He is still demanding a literal reading of the English text, regardless of context or linguistic considerations; and, he is doing so for malicious reasons. His agenda is to display Jesus in a negative light; hence, ANYTHING that would lesson that negativity is to be rejected -- regardless of the truth. In my opinion, MY understanding of "miseo" is difficult enough. But, for Dennis, it's not nearly hard enough. He must DESTROY people's faith in Jesus.
3. I have already posted remarks from some of those scholars who agree with me ... or, more properly, with whom I am in agreement. They include: Kittle, Baur, Blass, DeBrunner, Funk, Michel, Greenfield, Green, Schweizer, Metzger, Tilden, the editors and section authors of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (I don't have it in front of me at the moment), Miller, Bruce, Charlesworth, Liddell, Scott ... shall I go on??? Each one of these scholars recognizes that the word "hate" is usually used to translate "miseo," but ALSO recognize that in this situation such is a compromise translation because we lack a specific word in English to translate this nuance of "miseo." Hence, the MAJORITY of scholars tend to agree that what he have here is NOT emotional hatred, but an "orientational" hatred -- not vindictive, angry hatred, but a way of orienting oneself towards those who would conflict with the disciple's devotion to Jesus. I understand perfectly that it is THIS kind of devotion that Dennis thinks is so cultic. Granted (if one is to accept such highly charged, pejorative terms), the devotion that Jesus is calling for *is* extreme. HOWEVER, Jesus is NOT directing his disciples to go and kill their families, to hate with undifferentiated and unjust hatred themselves and their families. He is telling them to (as Matthew's version illustrates) prefer Him over them.
This brings me to the end of the line on this subject. I'm sure that Dennis' ego will demand that he get in the last word (and the last jab), and so I shall let him. Let no one think that my allowing him the last word on this subject constitutes, IN ANY WAY, my "giving up" my position. He may crow, he may dance a jig ,he may arrogantly claim to have "won," he may call me names and belittle my integrity, but, frankly, I'm just disgusted with his childish games. I've presented my position, supported it with significant and adequate evidence, and have nothing more to say (on this issue). If Dennis MUST have the last word (here), then I shall let him.
One does not need a Doctorate of Theology to be a Christian - does one?
I say they do not
I agree. My mentor and best friend for 10 years had 5 earned doctorates; Literature, Law, Psychoogy, and two in Theology. One day he mentioned that I should pay close attention to the comments of a gentleman named Arthur Taliaferro in the Sunday School. I did and was surprised at his deep inslights into the Word. Taliaferro was a black man with a third grade education my mentor had taught to read using the KJV as a primer.
I mentioned that individual to show agreement. That said, I have to ask if ignorance of the Bible is a virture? Why are Christians commanded to study the Word?
That said, I have to ask if ignorance of the Bible is a virture?
It is not.
Why are Christians commanded to study the Word?
So they know what is expected of them from God.
Mark 10:15 15Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive and accept and welcome the kingdom of God like a little child positively shall not enter it at all.
those who considered themselves superior were more at odds with God than those who were aware of their sins. Those who sincerely repent—even if they are the hated toll-collectors, prostitutes, or ignorant common people—are more likely to receive God’s forgiveness than are the learned and self-righteous. Indeed, Jesus said, it was only in childlikeness that people could enter the kingdom of heaven.
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
I guess I will have to leave it simply at this. I will not argue, or try to prove as in the debate, what is and what isn’t (and I never have) because I simply am not qualified to make that judgment.
I can only say that I still don’t understand it. I know there to be others who also do not understand this – again, not to say what is or what isn’t.
It looks here like this is another case to one of one says it does not and one says it does.
Do you have a link so that I may read the whole debate and learn what Dennis had to say?
I will not take your time any longer on this, we can spend the time on other things.
