“Suffering is not for nothing” – Elisabeth Elliot

This is part 1 in a series on suffering, by the missionary wife of Jim Elliot, who, in 1956, along with 4 other men,  was killed by an indigenous tribe in South America, when they attempted to take the gospel into that area.  Throughout her 6 part series, she reminds us that God is sovereign and many sufferings are ultimately a mystery to us, as to why – like Job’s sufferings were not revealed to Job himself.  We know more information that Job got, because of chapters 1-2 in the book of Job.  God allowed Satan to attack Job.  God allowed Satan to attack the apostle Paul. (2 Corinthians 12:1-10)  God allowed Satan to attack Peter. (Luke 22:31)  She reminds us that God has purposes for our sufferings – to conform us to the image of His Son (Romans 8:28-30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Hebrews 12:1-11) and so that we can minister and comfort others by sharing our compassion from what we learn through suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-10).  Throughout her series, she makes the excellent point that part of the way in which we continue to trust God and persevere in our pain and suffering, is to “do the next thing”.  Doing our duties in life expresses trust in God.  After we pray and read Scripture, mornings and evenings, there comes a point when we have to do things, be disciplined, work, etc.  As someone else told me years ago, when faced with a mystery over the next steps in life, “Do what you know to do (obey God through the revealed will of God in Scripture), then you will know what to do.”  Obedience causes us to grow closer to the Lord in a personal relationship with Him.  (John 14:21, 23; 15:9-11) She wrote many books, one of which had a great impact on me as a young Christian, when I read it in 1979-1982.  The book is entitled “The Shadow of the Almighty”.  

Posted in missions, Sanctification/Holy living, Spiritual growth, Suffering and God's Sovereignty | Leave a comment

“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive” Jordan Peterson

The more I have time to watch all three of these videos, the more brilliant I see David Wood’s analysis of the Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman debate that became so famous in 2018-2019 and continues to produce fruit in understanding a lot of analysis of modern cultural debate these days.  David Wood’s “3 Lessons” is brilliant:


Of course this made me go back and watch the famous interview again, and it is amazing.  The whole thing is worth watching and thinking about.

Jordan Peterson spends the entire time correcting Cathy Newman’s questions that are almost always full of prejudicial assumptions and judgements that she has already made against him.  Peterson is quick to provide empirical evidence and corrections to her biased questions.

Around the 21:00 mark, Peterson corrects her on what she wrongly asserts about his refusal to obey government mandated speech.

Then, Cathy Newman asks:  “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump the Transgender’s right not to be offended?”

Jordan Peterson:  “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive”   

Brilliant !  I wish I had his quick wit and intellect!

David Wood also did a good job of taking Jordan Peterson’s empirical evidence and showing how wrong Islam and Muhammad was about women intelligence.  I personally don’t like the cartoon of Muhammad that is on the still photo, but the intellectual content of polemics against Islam, by using the quotes from the Qur’an and the Hadiths is brilliant.


Posted in Critical Thinking, Freedom of speech, Gender speech issues and Transgender rights, moral corruption of culture, Science, The gay agenda, Truth, Western Universities and cultural Marxism

Why some people hate cops (An Ex-con explains)

Great analysis by David Wood, who had lots of experience in jail and prison. His breakdown of 5 different kinds of Correctional officers / guards in jails and prisons and application to 5 different kinds of policemen was very good.  Very timely, because of what is going on today.  In my opinion, this is David Wood’s second best video of all time, the first being the one he did with Nabeel on “the original burning of the Qur’an Day”(Uthman’s burning of all the older Qur’ans and fragments)

Posted in moral corruption of culture, Morality and Ethics in Government, Understanding the hatred of police by some

Musings on Steve Chalke’s statement that the Atonement of Christ was “cosmic child abuse”

From comments at a Muslim blog:


It was always unjust for the heretic Steve Chalke to describe the atonement as “cosmic child abuse” and saying that is contradicts “God is love”, and that it makes a mockery of the command to love others, even one’s enemies”, etc.

It was unjust to leave out other points of the doctrine. And seeing the quote above, Chalke fails to mention that the Son willingly and voluntarily came to take the punishment for sin for sinful humanity; and the Son did this out of love for the Father and love for human sinners from all the nations. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; Romans 5:6-11)

Chalke also thinks homosexuality is not sin and that so called “same sex marriage” is ok; so this guy is a complete heretic and not credible, no matter what other good he may do.

Why did God set up the sacrificial system in Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16 and 17?
It is not only unintentional sins that needed sacrifice, but intentional sins also – Leviticus 6:1-7 and chapter 16 and 17:11, and Hebrews 9:22 shows that it included intentional sins also, but they are only effective if there is genuine repentance and faith. Someone who just goes through the ritual without heart repentance and faith in God/Christ’s atonement, is also not effective, and hypocrisy. Psalm 66:18 – “If I regard sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.”

Isaiah 53 clearly shows that the Suffering Servant ( Messiah) would be an individual who would come and be a substitutionary sacrifice and atonement for sins; someone who voluntarily rendered Himself as a guilt offering; thus satisfying the justice of God against sin.

” . . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him” Isaiah 53:6

“The Lord was pleased to crush Him, if He would voluntarily render Himself a guilt offering . . . ” Isaiah 53:10

“As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied . . . the righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, He will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11

“He poured Himself out to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:12

“for the Son of Man . . . came to serve [be the suffering servant of Isaiah 53] and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

Maybe that is why the cry for justice is so great in the Muslim world and there are SOME who take the law into their own hands and do honor killings – because Islam as a whole have denied the love of God in the atonement of Christ [as in Surah 4:157], and therefore, don’t have the power to forgive enemies or injustice or wrong.

Why did God create hell?

In Christian theology, hell is God’s justice against Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41), and unrepentant sinners. (Revelation 14:10; Revelation 20:10-15, Mark 9:47-48; Matthew 5:21-30)

Those that repent and trust in Christ’s atonement, are saved from sin, and the penalty of sin, which is hell; but that does not mean they have “fire insurance” and live like however they want, no; rather, they are changed to be “new creations” (2 Cor. 5:17) with hearts and character of love and purity. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Christ the eternal Son came to willingly and lovingly take the penalty for sin in our place. (John 10:18)

Galatians 3:13 – Christ redeemed us from the curse (wrath, justice, punishment, judgment) of the law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” . . .

The curse / judgement / wrath of God / justice of God points back to the punishment for sin that God mentioned in Genesis 3:14-24 and Genesis 12:3.

Posted in Atonement for sin, Justice, Wrath of God

Dr. Yasir Qadhi on the textual history of the Qur’an

Jay Smith analyzes Dr. Yasir Qadhi’s admissions about the textual history of the Qur’an, the issues of preservation, Ahruf and Qira’at:


The full interview is here:  Muhammad Hijab interviews Dr. Yasir Qadhi

David Wood simply lets key points in the interview speak for themselves, with a little help from Jack Nicholson.

Addendum: (It looks like the YouTube censors took down David Wood’s video because of a copyright claim by Yasir Qadhi.)  It seems that his analysis is similar to the way Jay Smith did his, although more “in your face” with the famous Jack Nicholson line from the movie, “A Few good men”.  It does not seem to violate copyright standards, since it it just using clips and giving credit to Yasir Qadhi; etc. by “fair use” standards – using clips and quoting another person is fine.  Apparently, YouTube will probably have to deem that Yasir Qadhi’s claim is not valid, and the video will come back after a time of process in determining if it is valid or not.  We will see.)

They (Dr. Qadhi and Muhammad Hijab) discuss the issues of the Ahruf احرُف  and Qira’at قراعت  or قرائت  or قراءت

One Muslim explained these things to me this way:

There are seven recognized ways of recitation ( قراءات سبعة) and seven dialects of the Qur’an (سبعة أحرف ).

أحرف  in Qur’anic sciences is a broad concept but we can simply say it’s a inspired  variation in words of the Qur’an, based on the dialects of the ancient arab lexicon,  not the modern arabic dialects.

Abu Hatim Al-Sajastaniy refer the seven dialects as :

  1.  بلغة قريش
  2.  بلغة كنانة
  3.  بلغة أسد
  4.  بلغة هذيل
  5.  بلغة تميم
  6.  بلغة قيس عيلان
  7.  بلغة أهل اليمن

While قراءات  means in Qur’anic sciences, the ways and manners of reciting the Qur’an as folows:

  1. عبد الله بن كثير الداري المكي

  2. عبد الله بن عامر اليحصبي الشامي

  3. عاصم بن أبي النَّجود الأسدي الكوفي

  4. أبو عمرو بن العلاء البصري

  5. حمزة بن حبيب الزيات الكوفي

  6. نافع بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي نعيم المدني

  7. أبو الحسن علي بن حمزة الكسائي النحوي الكوفي

In a debate in 2009, between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi on this issue, as I recall, Zawadi called them “modes” (what does that even mean?).  That debate was moderated by Paul Williams.

Part 1

Part 2  (Rebuttals and conclusions)

Ahruf, means literally, “letters”, plural of Harf حرف = letters) and Qira’at  قراءت  or قرائت (readings, various ways to pronounce words when read out loud).  See here for introduction to the Ahruf and Qira’at (variant readings).

James White also spent a lot of time on this issue recently –


(The first 8 minutes were about the recent terrible Supreme Court decision on LGBT issues.  )

James White especially emphasized, (which he has done rightly so, many times in the past) the historical fact that Islam had government control and force that enabled them to enforce a fixed text in the Uthman Recension, and then they destroyed the oldest copies and fragments of the Qur’an.  (or most of them)  This is famous in the Sahih Hadith traditions.

See here for more details.  

(Also see James White’s debate with Yusuf Ismail on this issue at that link.)

Here is the famous Sahih Hadith of the Uthmanic Recension:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).” By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, “How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” Abu Bakr replied, “By Allah, it is a good project.” Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (Surah 9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (Surah 33.23)

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, “You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah’s Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur’an and collect) it.” I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were): ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty …’ (Surah 9.128-129)  Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, no. 509, 510, 511)

Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, no. 509, 510, 511  (my embolding for emphasis)

What is better:  An honest look at the textual history and evidence of the earliest manuscripts by a freely transmitted text, under persecution until 313 AD, as in the NT, or a controlled text by the government and state of Islam with the power of the sword to enforce the new text, as in the Qur’an?

“I am afraid . . . that a large part ( کثیر )  will be lost”

Uthman ordered all other materials burnt . . .

See also here, for a great video introduction to the general issue of the burning of the older copies and fragments of the Qur’an ordered by Uthman, the 3rd Sunni Caliph. (video by David Wood and the late Nabeel Qureshi)


A Muslim by the name of Vaqas Rehman, asked:  (see the combox)

Question for you Ken, do you even know what the qiraat and ahruf are?

My Answer:  Apparently you did not read the middle part of my post (between the videos), where I provided Eric bin Kisam’s definition of the Ahruf and Qira’at. (and link over to Paul Williams’ old blog, where we discussed these issues before). (the old one that Ijaz took over for a while)

He gave one of the Ahruf as “a dialect / vocabulary/language of the Qureshi tribe”

بلغة قريش

به = to, according to, in, at, with, for, through

لغه or لغت = language, vocabulary, dialect, word

قریش = Quresh – tribe of Quresh, the Qureshi tribe

Ok, but that means both the Ahruf and the Qira’at (ways of pronouncing out loud, oral method of vocalization, reading out loud, reciting.) – both are oral issues, not written text issues – and Dr. Qadhi says 10 ways of reciting (in the post provided by Ijaz), but Eric Bin Kisam says 7 Ahruf and 7 Qira’at.

So, was there 7 different Qur’ans with the proper vocalizations (lines, dots, punctuation, accent marks) at the time of Muhammad on the written text so that each tribe can recite the Qur’an properly? Where are these 7 or 10 Qira’ats and where are the 7 (or 3 or whatever, even Dr. Qadhi says this in his answers to Muhammad Hijab) and where are the written text of all the different Ahruf.

We have these words in Farsi, by the way; they come to us from Arabic.

احرُف = Ahruf = the plural form of Harf حرف = letter, can also mean speech, talk. In the context of the science / knowledge of Islam and the Qur’an, it seems to mean the different dialects of the different tribes in Arabia.

لغت ( I am using the Farsi version of لغه without the two dots over the final form of ه = Loqat = vocabulary, word, dialect, language
قرائت ، قراءت ، قراعت = reading out loud, reciting, oral reciting

Posted in Apologetics, Islam, Muslim scholar, Muslims, Textual History of the Qur'an, Uthman Recension | 2 Comments

Intro to Textual Variants, TR Onlyism, KJV Onlyism

“TR” = “the Textus Receptus” – the Greek printed text behind the King James Version (1611) of the Bible, that developed through several editions that began with Erasmus (1516) collection of ONLY about 7 Greek manuscripts available to him at the time to form his basis for his Greek printed text, which was the text that inspired Luther to translate the NT into German and later Tyndale to translate the NT into English.

These are 5 different resources by James White, related to the Text of the Greek New Testament issues: (There are many more; this is only an introduction to the issue. I am still learning also.)

  1.  Lecture that James White did on the Reliability of the NT text,
  2. Two of James White’s Dividing Line programs and
  3. Two of his books that explores the issues of the reliability of the New Testament, textual variants, TR Onlyism (TR = Textus Receptus – the Greek text platform developed from Erasmus’ original 1516 Greek Text) and King James Onlyism.  There is much more to be said in these areas, but this is just an intro to the subject.

1.Start here with an overview of NT Reliability – a lecture James White did in 2011 –  One of my earliest posts here at my blog.


2.  Then listen to this about the position of the TR Ecclesiastical Text only position:



3.  The book that is a written debate between James White and Douglas Wilson on the TR only (Textus Receptus) or the “Ecclesiastical Text” position:



4.  The DL podcast that prompted the one after it (above) about questions about the TR (Textus Receptus)



5.  The Book:  “The King James Only Controversy” – in many ways, a person should start with this and number 1 above, then the other 3 resources.


Addendum: (June 18, 2020)

6.  A Great Summary of the issues from one of Dr. White’s debates: (Part 3 of a debate vs. a KJV Onlyist)


Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Historical reliability of the Bible, Textual Variants | 5 Comments

Steve Hays (1959-2020)

Christian Apologist, Reformed theologian writer at Triablogue has passed away.


Wow . . . Steve was only a couple of years older than me. I was always amazed at the amount of material Steve wrote at Triablogue, and also at the logic and Biblical content and also at his vocabulary. I praise God for his faith and writings and testimony he gave for the glory of the Triune God.

In Steve’s atricles (at Triablogue), I had to look up many words of his articles (praise God for google and that hovering thingy that gives definitions) and many times I had to read several times to even understand what he was saying, because he was so smart and I am pretty slow in grasping a lot of his material. Many of his articles I would start and give up because of time and they were just over my head intellectually.

We started emailing a few years ago and he was always gracious and insightful in answering my questions. He also had a warm heart of counsel on some issues that sometimes one may not think he has if they only read some of his articles, especially the way he skewered people in debate – those that he disagreed with. But he was very balanced and wise. As I was asking him more and more questions by email a few months ago (maybe a year ?), he confided in me that had terminal cancer, and asked me not to share that with anyone, and he wrote, “if you have any more questions, ask away because my time on this earth is short”; so I am not shocked at this news, but of course I am very sad, and cried some. I was amazed at how he kept responding to my questions by email and took so much time to help me personally.  I was also amazed at how long he kept up and kept writing and was cogent, clear, logical, to the point, and still writing even up until a few days ago. That was really amazing – I think his last post was on June 3 !!!!

Over the last year or many months, I was amazed that he kept going in writing at Triablogue these months and I prayed for him and his pain – he never dwelt on himself and wrote something like (by email to me) “we all have to deal with dying”; and “it is the great reality”. He seemed really brave to me in dealing with death and pain.
I told him to make sure all his writings here are preserved. We will will all miss him and his intellect.

I looked at his Facebook and the tributes there of his closer friends, and this quote of Steve’s (shared by Peter Pike, another Triablogue writer) brought me to tears and a few minutes of crying this morning. If you have a lost a loved one, especially a child or a spouse; this was really powerful and ministered to me. Steve’s words minister to us even after he is gone on to be with the Lord.

“The more precious the thing you lose, the more you suffer the loss. But it’s better to lose something worthwhile then never having anything worthwhile to lose in the first place. And it’s better to suffer the loss of a greater good than to suffer the loss of a lesser good. Even though you suffer less or hardly at all, you miss out on the experience of having had the greater good. Many people lead wretched lives from start to finish. They never had the blessing of something precious to begin with.”

Again, this is powerful for anyone who has suffered the loss of a child or spouse or something as precious as those.

My tears are flowing more as I read this quote again.

So wonderful to be “in Christ”. I don’t see how unbelievers make it mentally and emotionally in this world.  We can grieve, but we grieve in a different way from unbelievers.  (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians chapter 15; and Romans chapter 8)  Like Steve, we who have believed in Christ as Lord, Messiah, Savior from sin; the one, the unique eternal Son (John 1:1-5; 1:14; John 17:5), who became human for our salvation (Philippians 2:5-8; John 1:14), was crucified, dead, buried, and rose from the dead with power and gave many convincing proofs (Acts 1:1-3) and who ascended to heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father, who intercedes for His people that He has purchased with His blood (1 John 1:5-2:2; Revelation 5; 7)  – we have the only true hope and we can face death because of Christ.  As R. C. Sproul once said, “Because of Christ and His grace in saving me, I am not afraid of death (that point of passing from this world into the next), but I am afraid of the process of dying.” (if slow, painful, nursing home, etc.) [ My own paraphrase and adaptation of his words.]

For those of us who are “in Christ”, saved by grace alone, justified by faith alone, we have, in the words of Jesus, “passed out of judgment into eternal life” (John 5:24) and in the words of the apostle Paul, “there is now no condemnation (no wrath, no judgement) for those who are in Christ Jesus”.  Romans 8:1

As long as you are alive, there is still time to repent and trust in Christ.  Hebrews 9:27 – “for it is appointed to mankind once to die, and then comes the judgement”

Steve dealt with that process courageously over the past year.  Christ gave Him that courage and that spiritual strength.

Steve is enjoying fellowship with the Lord now in heaven.

“Oh death, where is your sting?”
“Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”
I Corinthians 15

Posted in Apologetics, Death, Eternal Life, Faith, Hope | 3 Comments

What is the essence and root of sin?

Excellent message by John Piper

Posted in Original sin, Spiritual growth

Moses wrote about Jesus the Messiah

This article claims that John 5:46 is wrong and that Jesus did not say it and that Moses did not write about the coming Messiah Jesus.

Yet Jesus Himself said that Moses DID write and predict Him.

John 5:46

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis

Moses wrote this, since Moses wrote the book of Genesis also, along with the law in Exodus – Deuteronomy; which was God’s promise to Abraham, after he was tested and obeyed, by being willing to give up / sacrifice his only unique son:

“And through your offspring, all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” (Genesis 22:18).

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his own son (Genesis 22:2, 12) is a prophetic foreshadowing of God the Father’s willingness to give His only unique Son. (John 3:16)

The substitution of the innocent animal is also a prophetic foreshadowing of the substitutionary death of the Messiah, which even the Qur’an agrees with the ransom / substitution aspect of it (Surah 37:107), even though it also tries to deny the principle (Surah 22:37)

This promise to Abraham and his seed was a further development from:

Genesis 3:15 – the seed of woman that would crush the serpent’s head (defeat Satan)

Genesis 12:3 – “and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed”

Genesis 18:18
Genesis 22:18 (above) – “through you and your seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed”
Genesis 26:4
Genesis 28:14
Genesis 49:10 – the one who comes from the seed of Judah will be the king (Messiah), who has a scepter of righteous rulership (just King) and will belong “the obedience of the peoples / nations” – that Gentiles nations will come to know the true God through the Messiah.

Galatians 3:6-8 and 3:16 shows the ultimate fulfillment is in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Deuteronomy was written by Moses!  

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 – the prophet is the same as the Messiah – which Acts 3:22-25 proves, written around 62 AD – long before Islam came 600 years late.

That the word “Messiah” is not mentioned in these passages is ok, just as NONE of the passages that the Jews today claim is about the Messiah have the word Messiah in them.

But 2 of the main ones Christians have are Psalm 2:1-12 – both Messiah and Son of God are there. And Daniel 9:24-27 – the Messiah will come, be cut off, then the re-built 2nd temple will be destroyed ( 70 AD)

Paul Williams claimed a few months ago that Isaiah 52-53 is not about the Messiah just because the word Messiah is not used there. (quoting NT professor Christopher Tucker)

Muslims, Jewish people, and even some liberal scholars claim that Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 is not about the Messiah just because the word Messiah is not used there.

Biblical Passages Referring to the Mashiach (according to modern Jews – the word Messiah is not there)

The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we [Jews for Judaism] rely upon in developing our messianic concept:

Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14
If you want to know how Jews interpret the passages that Christians consider to be messianic, see Jews for Judaism, a counter-missionary organization not associated with this website, especially their article about Christian Proof-Texting.”

My (Ken) Response:

Mark says “the Son of Man must suffer” (Mark 8:31) (see also Mark 9:31 – they will kill him”; Mark 10:33-34

33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”

What OT (Tanakh) texts do Jews today consider to be Messianic?

Again: (But notice Isaiah 11 – a key Messianic text – verse 1 speaks of the root and branch of Jesse – David’s father and uses a word that is probably what Matthew 2:23 is referring to. (see extensive documentation here.)

So, “Nazareth” describes Jesus being rejected by the Jews. Isaiah 14:19 – “like a rejected branch” = כְּנֵצֶר נִתְעָב כ = like נצר = NZR, Nazer, branch נתעב = rejected, despised Isaiah 11:1 – “then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (father of David); and a branch (Nazer – נצר ) from his roots will bear fruit.” (see rest of Isaiah 11:1-10 – a very Messianic passage in the Jews minds. This is referred to in Acts 13:22-23; and Isaiah 11:10 is quoted in Romans 15:12)

The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:

Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

Me: NONE of them have the word “Messiah” in them.


The New Testament calls Jesus “the Monogenes” (“the only unique Son” or “one of a kind” or “only begotten” Son)

Hebrews 11:17 calls Isaac Abraham’s “monogenes” son (only unique, one of a kind, the old translations say “only begotten).

Since Ishmael was also a son of Abraham, but not the one whom the covenant promise was to come through (Genesis chapter 16; 17:19-21), in that sense Isaac is the “only son”, the unique one, the monogenes – the word used of Jesus in John 3:16; John 1:14; John 1:18; John 3:18, 1 John 4:9.

Exodus was also written by Moses

Also the Passover Lamb was about Jesus.

Exodus 12

John 1:29

1 Corinthians 5:7

Moses wrote Exodus, so Moses wrote about Jesus the future Messiah.

Isaiah 53 continued that trajectory in prophecy.

There are many problems with the claim that Isaiah 52:13-15 through 53:1-12 “has nothing to do with Jesus”.

The main problem with the Islamic claim here, is that you are using later Jewish interpretations which are reactions to the fact that 2nd temple Judaism was destroyed in 70 AD and further decimated in 135 AD at the Bar Kokhba rebellion when some Jews came back militarily to fight the pagan Romans who had destroyed the temple and they were led by a guy who many Jews claimed to be Messiah (Simon Bar Kokhba), because he was doing militarily what they were expecting Jesus to do earlier, but Jesus was crucified.

The Bar Kokhba revolt (Hebrew: מֶרֶד בַּר כּוֹכְבָא; Mered Bar Kokhba) was a rebellion of the Jews of the Roman province of Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, against the Roman Empire. Fought circa 132–136 CE,[4] it was the last of three major Jewish–Roman wars, so it is also known as The Third Jewish–Roman War or The Third Jewish Revolt. Some historians also refer to it as the Second Revolt[5] of Judea, not counting the Kitos War (115–117 CE), which had only marginally been fought in Judea.  (from the Wikipedia article)

So, the earlier interpretation of Isaiah 52:13 (My servant) to Isaiah 53:12 (verse 11 – My servant will justify the many”, verse 12 – He bore the sin of many”, etc.)

Jesus the Messiah Himself said He is that servant!!

Mark 10:45
Matthew 20:28
Mark 14:24
Matthew 26:28
Luke 22:19-20
Luke 24:25-27; 24:32; 24:39; 24:44-49 (it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer, die, rise from the dead and be preached to all the nations and this was all from the OT – Moses and the prophets, the Torah, the Psalms and the Prophets. (v. 44)

Every line from Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the rest of the various 27 books of the New Testament, the true Injeel.

52:13 – “My servant” – Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28 – “Jesus came to serve and give His life a ransom for many”

See extensive documentation of almost every line of Isaiah 52:13-53:1-12, in an earlier article here.

The NT is the proper interpretation of what the TaNaKh was prophesying about. (Torah, Nabi’im (prophets) and Khetovim (holy writings, wisdom literature, Psalms, poetic books, some historical books).

Islam, by calling Jesus “the Messiah” Al Masih المسیح , unknowingly confirms this, and Rejects the Rabbinical interpretations of trying to deny that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah. Islam also unknowingly confirms this by also confirming that the previous Scriptures are God’s word, sent down by God, guidance and light, and were still with the Jews and the Christians at the time of Muhammad – ie, they were NOT corrupted.

Another of David Wood’s recent videos confirms this – the logic and reason and argumentation simply destroys Islam and proves that it is wrong, and that the NT is the proper Jewish interpretation of the TaNaKh.

He demonstrates decisively why Surah 2:79 does not show that the Injeel nor the Torah was corrupted at the time of Muhammad.

So, your article on “Crucifixion 3 – the prophets” is completely demolished.

The Qur’an says the Disciples of Jesus are believers in God, faithful, and were victorious over their enemies (Surah 3:52-55; 6:14)

Also, Islam even says that the view of the NT Jews, the writers of the NT, the disciples of Jesus and their helpers (like Luke for Paul, Barnabas, Silas (possible writers of Hebrews), Mark for Peter, etc.) – they were believers and full of integrity and became the uppermost and dominant and obvious / manifest ones. (Surah 3:54-55 and 61:14)

David Wood’s excellent video on Surah 2:79 and much more, which proves the Qur’an never says that the text of the previous Scriptures (OT and NT, the true Injeel) was changed:


Addendum: May 1, 2020

Jesus Himself, the Messiah, Al Masih said that the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms (Luke 24:44) are about Him (Luke 24:25-27) and His death, resurrection, and preaching to all nations (Luke 24:46-47)

God has to open your mind, just as He had to with the disciples – Luke 24:45

“then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”

Galatians 3:6-8 and 3:16 teaches that the seed to come to bring blessing to the nations was the Messiah Jesus. (Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 18:18; 22:17-18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10) The spiritual blessings are the doctrines of salvation, forgiveness of sins, atonement, etc. Moses wrote Genesis; Moses wrote Exodus – Jesus is the Passover Lamb. Exodus 12. Turned away the wrath / justice of God against sin. Moses wrote Deuteronomy. Acts 3:22-25 tells us clearly that Deut. 18:15-18 is Jesus the Messiah. Moses wrote Numbers; the star to come out of Jacob was about Jesus the Messiah. (Numbers 24:17) And the bronze serpent being lifted up and when people look to it, it is symbol / type of the coming Messiah – see Numbers 21:9 and John 3:10-16).  Moses wrote Leviticus. The whole chapters on sacrifices and blood atonement for sacrifices and day of atonement is all about the ultimate sacrifice for sin – Jesus Al Masih. (Leviticus chapters 1-6; 16-17) (Hebrews chapters 8-10)

Posted in Apologetics, Atonement for sin, Genesis, Gospel according to John, Islam, Messiah in OT in work of atonement, Muslims, OT Prophecies, Prophesy Fulfilled | 19 Comments

The Qur’an misunderstands the Trinity

“Does the Qur’an misunderstand the Trinity? 

 [Analysis of Sūrat al-ikhlāṣ] (Surah 112)

Surah 112 (Al-Ikhlas =  الاخلاص ، “The Purity”) does not show knowledge or understanding of the Trinity nor the eternal Sonship of Christ, nor the Deity of Christ, nor the term “begotten”; nor church history, nor the creeds.

The other phrases around the ones that are highlighted and explained, show that you don’t understand what the Creed is talking about. The phrase “begotten, not made” demonstrates this. “begotten” does not mean “created” or “came into being at a certain time”.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten (only unique and only generated out from ) Son of God, begotten (means coming out of from, generation from and with Light of light, means the same nature of light coming out from God, who is light (1 John 1:5)
of the Father before all worlds (æons),

“before all worlds” means eternally into the past. (the context was specifically against Arius and Arianism, the heresy that said, “there was a time, when the Son was not”.

So the Son is not a creation or creature, as it says later, “not made”. (not created; having no beginning) John 17:5 and John 1:1-5 and Philippians 2:5-8 say the same thing.

Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made –

light of light means the essence of the Son being light comes out of the same essence of the Light, the Father – God is light.

الله نور

We have the same word for light نور (Nor or Nur) in Farsi.

1 John 1:5
“God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all”

“very God of very God” = the Son is truly God whose nature comes out of very God, the Father.

Very God (the Son) of Very God (the Fahter) = the Son’s nature is the same, coming out from the Father.

Not only does the Qur’an not understand the Trinity at Surah 112, but it also does not understand the Trinity in other places, like:

Surah 6:101
“how can God have a son when there is no consort / wife for Him?”

This is what the Qur’an THINKS Christians meant by the terms “Father” and “Son” and seeing the icons and statues of Mary also made them think this. And probably hearing prayers to Mary and hearing some Christians calling her “the Mother of God” made them think this.

Surah 5:116
Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’

الهین من دون الله
= “2 gods besides God”

(God, Jesus, and Mary are said to be 2 gods with God) with 5:72-75 (“Jesus and Mary used to each eat their daily food; “Allah is the third of three” with 4:171 – “say not three” shows the Qur’an thinks this; – shows the Qur’an thinks Mary is part of the Trinity. That the Qur’an says “three gods” means the author of the Qur’an does not understand history, nor the Creeds, which was always “one God”, “in three persons” – also the phrase in 5:72
” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” – shows the Qur’an did not understand what Christians said and even gets the phraseology wrong. Christians said “The Messiah is God” (by nature/substance/essence) – they never made the statement: “God is the Messiah” – big difference.
The ignorance of “Allah” in the Qur’an is astounding and proof that the Living God did not inspire the book.

Surah 19:88-92

The Surah is “Maryam”, the Mother of Jesus, so they are talking about what they heard Christians saying:

And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son.”

اتخذ – verse 88 –

(we have this word and its various forms in Farsi also)

“taken”, “adopt”, “assume”, “arrange” – this shows the Qur’an thinks that God later in time “takes” or “adopts” a son or with 6:101 0 that He had sex with a wife – a monstrous thought! استغفرالله
estaqfr’Allah ! ( I seek the forgiveness of God) – Iranians also say this a lot when someone cuts themselves down – “don’t say that!”, “may God forgive you”.

Obviously the Qur’an does not understand the eternal nor spiritual relationship of the Son and the Father into the past eternally, that it is not a physical thing, nor sexual. That is why the virgin birth was necessary.

Al Masih entered into creation at a point in time. (Luke 1:34-35)

19:89 – You have done an atrocious thing.
The strong language here and in verse 90 and 92 also shows that the Qur’an thought it was about sex and physical touch and biology.

19:90 -The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation.

The idea of God having a wife, having sex, becoming a Father, etc. is so ridiculous the heavens almost rupture and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse”, etc.

19:91 – That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.

19:92 – And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.

All together, this definitely shows the Qur’an has misunderstood the Trinity and the Sonship of Christ; and proves it was not from Almighty God.

See also James White’s excellent debate on this issue vs. Bassam Zawadi, a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.

Posted in Apologetics, church history, Council of Nicea, Deity of Christ, early church history, Islam, Muslims, Nicea, The doctrine of the Trinity