Context of Surah 2:79 is 2:78 and 2:75

The Qur’an never says the text of the Previous Scriptures (OT & NT) fell into wholesale corruption.

Apologetics and Agape

Muslims charge the Christians and Jews with altering, changing, corrupting the text of the previous Scriptures.  (previous to the Qur’an)  Yet the Qur’an teaches that the previous Scriptures are not corrupted or changed.  (Surah 10:94; 5:46-48; 5:68) See here

One of the main verses Muslims use is Surah 2:79

So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.  Surah 2:79

But they usually fail to note what verses 75 to 78 say, especially verse 75 and 78.

Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of themused to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were…

View original post 328 more words

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Bible is not corrupted, Islam, Muslims, Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Context of Surah 2:79 is 2:78 and 2:75

  1. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    I take it you still haven’t looked at the links/videos both stew and I have given you?

    • Ken Temple says:

      you gave a link, but I don’t remember videos

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        sorry i meant the videos that stew gave you.

      • Ken Temple says:

        What videos that Stew gave?

      • Ken Temple says:

        The issue of those 3 videos is about the different pronunciations of Arabic. ahroof احرف ( plural of “harf” (letter, talking) letters, sounds, pronunciations, ways of reading out-load – but not understandable as different than Qira’at (reading out-load, reciting)

        I am not convinced, but Omar, Zayd, & Uthman in the Hadith about the burning of the older Qur’ans, – the point was, “do something, lest we become like the Christians”, etc. – implying the text got corrupt and lost. If is just seven or ten ways or modes of pronouncing, then that issue is contradictory to those famous Hadiths.

        “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 Yamama, 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.”

        Losing a large portion of the Qur’an is different than just having different modes of reading or pronunciation of different dialects.

        see also here:
        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/1883/
        “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 (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.” ”

        Hadith From Sahih Al Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:

      • Ken Temple says:

        Also, those 3 videos do not address the issue of Surah 2:79 and surrounding context.

        Your whole issue is soundly defeated.

    • Ken Temple says:

      The above article defeats that link of an article you gave me.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        And did you take that up with the author of the blog?

      • Ken Temple says:

        no; no time right now.
        That is why I put reblogged my article.
        It is decisive.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple
        “no; no time right now.
        That is why I put reblogged my article.
        It is decisive.”

        Firstly no,no it isn’t. Second your statement
        “The Qur’an never says the text of the Previous Scriptures (OT & NT) fell into wholesale corruption.”
        shows that you misunderstand the Quran’s position on the matter. It was never that the past scriptures were COMPLETELY corrupted word for word letter by letter, but rather that SOME of the truth remains alongside the corruption as remnants or leftovers of the original. this can be seen for example by whatever agrees with the holy Quran.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Yes, my articles along are decisive on this matter.

        It is you who misunderstand the textual variants issues of the NT, because you and Muslim apologists use textual variants to then claim that doctrines like the crucifixion of Christ and the Deity of Christ are later corruptions / additions. etc.

      • Ken Temple says:

        another reason I reblogged that article was I saw at the “open forum” at Faiz’s blog, where Stewjo was complaining about the moderation.

        I already did that several years ago – each article is on a 14 day window.

        But I have been debating at Paul Williams several blogs ( 2 or 3 that he previously deleted) and here since 2011, so his point is moot and wrong.

  2. stewjo004 says:

    @ Ken

    s I know you BS a lot Ken and I’d rather not do a formal response I’ll simplify here. Ignoring that we have clear cut statements from Muhammad(saw) and his companions;

    1.This entire chapter is a response to the Jews arguments about why they don’t have to be Muslim. Some said because a prophet can only be Jewish some were just blind followers of the Rabbis. God then responds to them being the “chosen people” by narrating some embarrassing stories of their defiant past.

    2.Verse 2:75 does NOT mean they are going by what they hear and there is nothing in the text to indicate that. Let’s read slowly

    2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this (the Jews) will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?

    How can they be “going by what they hear” if they “understood God’s words”? You are combining two different groups together as one (more in a sec)

    3. What you are referring to is the “illiterate” ones in verse 2:78. The insult in the verse is they are “illiterate” because they don’t know the Scripture and just make things up ( ironically people such as yourself fall into this category) How can we tell the two are separate by simply reading:

    2:75. Now do you ˹really˺ hope that a people such as this will believe in you, when some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?
    2:76. When THEY meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?”
    2:77. Do they not understand that God knows what they’re hiding and what they’re showing?
    2:78. Among them AS WELL are the ‘illiterate’ ones who don’t know the Scripture except for wishful thinking. They’re only making guesses and assuming

    So God is basically saying:
    “I just narrated to you these people’s defiant ways such as the Golden Calf and the hardship they caused on Moses. Do you think people like this will believe in you and follow the truth when they witnessed all these miracles first hand? Oh and among these defiant folk are some ignorant ones who don’t even know Scripture so just ignore them. Both these groups change Scripture so may they all be cursed.”

    3.As for your “not all Jews” argument nobody ever claimed EVERY Jew ever was responsible for changing the Scripture. Just like SOME of them killed or lied on the prophets:

    2:87. I had given Moses the Scripture and continued it through several Messengers. I gave Jesus the son of Mary undeniable signs, and aided him with the Holy Spirit. So why then, every time a Messenger came to you with what you didn’t want, you all sought your own greatness? SOME of you called them liars, and SOME of you kill,
    2:88. and they said: “Our hearts are uncircumcised.” The fact is God has cursed them for their rejection, so their belief is little.

    it was their scholars and keepers who did (just like how scribes changed yours by adding in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11) We can see this elsewhere in the Quran for example:

    5:44. I revealed the Torah with guidance and Light. The prophets, who all submitted to God, based their ruling for the Jews according to it. And so did THE RABBIS AND SCHOLARS IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT THE WERE ENTRUSTED OF GOD’S SCRIPTURE, to which they themselves were witnesses…

    9:30. The Jews have said: “Uzair is the son of God!” and the Christians have said: “The Messiah is the son of God!” These are the words that have come from their own mouths, PLAGIARIZING AND ADAPtING WHAT DISBELIEVERS BEFORE THEM HAVE SAID. May God curse them! HOW ARE THEY BEING TURNED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH?
    9:31.THEY TAKE THEIR RABBIS AND PASTORS as their lords instead of God…

    Finally since we’re going from other spots we get a series of things the People of the Book are accused of in the Qur’an:

    1. Splitting the revelation given to them into different pieces and kept parts of it hidden (6:91, 5:15)
    2. Changing and altering the actual revelation given to them. (2:79 , 5:15)
    3. Forgetting large portions of the revelation given to them (5:13-14)
    4. Purposely altering and twisting God’s words from their context (5:13, 2:75)
    5. Writing another book and claiming its from God. (2:79)
    6. Misinterpreting verses from their books (62:5, 5:41)
    7. Adding and innovating their own belief systems not taught by Moses or Jesus (6:91, 57:27 )

    PS
    Nobody cares about you uninformed opinion regarding qirat (which you have admitted to not understanding)

    PSS
    Early Christians agreed with Muslims that the Torah had been changed. (See Ebionites) just one of the many ways you don’t believe like the people Jesus(as) actually preached to.

    PSS
    You still conveniently ignore these passages from the Quran:

    5:12. God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel…
    5:13. But they broke their promise, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a large portion of what they were told repeatedly to remember, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good.
    5:14. I had also taken a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.
    5:15. People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much ˹of what you changed˺. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear,
    5:16. which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.

    “Those who’ve disbelieved among the followers of the People of the Scripture and the pagans would’ve never stopped until clear proof came to them. A Messenger from God, reciting purified scriptures, which contain upstanding writings and laws in it.” (98:1-3)

    PSSS
    Become a Muslim

    • Ken Temple says:

      PSSS
      Become a Muslim

      Why?

    • Ken Temple says:

      We have both harf حرف (letter of the alphabet, to talk, to speak) and ahroof احرف (plural) and Qiraat قراءت (to read outloud and recite) in Farsi, the roots of those come from Arabic. Also Telifoz تلفظ (pronunciation, accent) is also from Arabic original.

      So, I do know what I am talking about.

    • Ken Temple says:

      . . . some of them used to hear God’s words and then change or twist it, even though they understood them?

      How can they be “going by what they hear” if they “understood God’s words”? You are combining two different groups together as one (more in a sec)

      The heard God’s words
      Understood them
      them changed or twisted them in their interpretation (other verses in the Qur’an speak of twisting with their tongues) Surah 3:78

      “Among them is a group who distort the Book with their tongues so that you think it is from the Book when it is not from the Book. They say, ‘it is from Allah’, but it is not from Allah. They tell a lie against Allah and they know it.” (Qur’an 3:78)

      So, it was not a written change, but an oral change of interpretation.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Ebionites were wrong and heretics and most of them did not even believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.

    • Ken Temple says:

      The Jews have said: “Uzair is the son of God!”

      The Jews never said, “Uzair is the son of God”. That alone takes down the Qur’an as unreliable.

      About John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20

      If it does really end at 16:8, we still have the empty tomb and the predictions of the resurrection – Mark chapters 8, 9, 10, etc. And the lack of it does no harm since the content of various resurrection appearances is in Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20 and Acts 1.

      There is enough of similarity in content of Mark 16:9-20 with Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20 to believe that there was another ending with the main truths that are also in those parallel passages. As it is, the only 2 manuscripts where they are missing is Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus.

      We are honest about our textual variants and did not burn the earlier copies.

      What Uthman did destroyed possibility of study of earlier texts of the Qur’an.
      A free transmission is better than a government controlled by force and sword, which is what Uthman did and what Islam is at is core – government force and tyranny – Al Jabbar and Kheir ol Makareen (the best deceiver)

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/1883/

      On John 7:53-8:11, it does not change any doctrine, but it illustrates the fact that the Pharisees did not bring the man who committed adultery and you cannot commit adultery without the other partner, so it illustrates the injustice and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the mercy and justice of Jesus.

      Even with those variants, nothing significant is harmed, no doctrine is corrupted or changed or lost – all the doctrines that Islam is against are still there and 600 years established before Islam came.

    • Ken Temple says:

      PSSS
      Become a Muslim

      why would I want to go against the truth (Psalm 19, Psalm 119, John 14:6; John 17:17) that is already established 600 years earlier and is wonderful, salvation, true, holy, life-changing, full of joy, true love, forgiveness, true peace, heaven, relationship with God Almighty, etc. (John 14:27; Matthew 11:27-30; Romans 5:1-11; Romans chapter 8:1-39)

      for something so empty and external and ritualistic and harsh on women (permission to hit / beat wives – Qur’an 4:34 – root is from ضرب – to strike, to hit, to beat ; women’s testimony 1/2 of a man’s) and harsh on the people and dictatorial and force and backwards and warlike in aggression in trying to conquer the world until stopped?
      and ugly in getting rid of adoption and ugly in the warriors taking sex slaves and doing Azl and rape, etc. ?
      Yuk

      • stewjo004 says:

        1. Qirat
        You have stated previously (I believe on this very blog) that you do not understand qiraat. I then tried to explain them to you and you found it “boring”. You then continue to say the same thing an now say you understand them. Interesting…

        2. Distortion
        It says they “ḥarrifun” the text which means both distorting and corrupting (hence me translating it change or twist) now from the dictionary:

        “To pervert, dislocate, change … alter, tamper with. To turn a thing from its proper way or manner, mistranscribe a word”

        “Rob…of it’s true meaning…deviate…distorted, corrupted, perverted”
        https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Haa-Ra-Fa.html

        They are being accused of both. Every scholar is agreed upon this with the only exception being missionaries

        3. Ebionites
        Interesting so you believe you have a better understanding of what Jesus(as) taught through unknown sources than the people he actually sat and preached to. How does that work? (Also it was not “most” and is irrelevant)

        4. Uzair
        You’re so predictable I thought of cutting that part just so you didn’t go on a tangent. Uzair imo is more than likely the angel Azael and yes the Jews did take him as the “Son of God”.

        5. Corruption
        A. No you’re not (see you hiding the Platonic influence on early Christianity)
        B. Went on a huge tangent. Somebody added the tales to the text, that is corruption, end of story.
        C.Please give a hadith where Uthman(ra) killed people. (Also no its not Ehrman did a whole thing on that lame excuse and said controlled text is better for preservation)
        D. It demonstrates nothing as it’s a make believe story and there is no doubt those scribes are in Hell.
        E. Actually many variants are significant and demonstrate deliberate changes by early Christians. (a nice example is the “what must i do to inherit the kingdom story and the altering of “good”)

        6.Why
        A. Because its the truth
        B. Trying to warn you from the Fire (this is more so on the Day of judgement you can’t argue that I didn’t invite honestly)

        7.Your random irrelevant propaganda
        A.Cannot beat a woman (multiple ahadith on this)
        B.Diffrence of opinion regarding testimony personally favor medininan women dring the prophets(saw) time
        C. Please list where Muslims are allowed to rape or that the’re “sex slaves” (also don’t forget to give commentary of actual rape and sex slaves in Numbers and Joshua)
        D. Adoption was not gotten rid of, you like your religion only have the Hellenistic concept of adoption.
        E. Not harsh on people once again you never fail to show your lack of knowledge and “illiteracy”

        The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Mu`adh and Abu Musa to Yemen telling them. ‘Treat the people with ease and don’t be hard on them; give them glad tidings and don’t fill them with aversion; and love each other, and don’t differ.”
        https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/244

        F.Curiosity can you tell everyone what Jesus(as) does in your text when he comes back since you have a problem with “warlike aggression”?

      • Ken Temple says:

        6. We already had the truth 600 years earlier, and now have the truth.
        John 14:6
        John 17:17
        John 16:13
        Psalm 89:14
        Psalm 97:2
        Isaiah 45:19
        Titus 1:2 – the living God is NOT ABLE to lie. (but your Allah is the most skilled deceiver / trickster / schemer الله خیر المکارین – Surah 3:54.

      • Ken Temple says:

        3. The Ebionites were not the people Jesus preached to.
        The first known reference to them by name is in Irenaeus (180-200AD) “Against Heresies “, 3:21

        1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. “

        They denied the virgin birth.
        Epiphanius in the 300s confirmed this.

      • Ken Temple says:

        1. قراعت واحرف
        Qiraat and Ahruf – Muslims don’t know how to explain the differences and use Arabic to hide and obfuscate.

        ِEric Bin Kasim even tried to explain, but hid behind Arabic terminology. Fortunately, I can see the “to the dialect / vocabulary / language of”بلغت = به لغت
        we have this in Farsi. 😉

        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 :

        بلغة قريش
        بلغة كنانة
        بلغة أسد
        بلغة هذيل
        بلغة تميم
        بلغة قيس عيلان
        بلغة أهل اليمن

        see here with link to discussion over at Paul Williams blog:
        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/dr-yasir-qadhi-on-the-textual-history-of-the-quran/

      • Ken Temple says:

        7. there are lots of Hadith that show that the fighters were having sex with the captives while their husbands were still alive and they were doing Azl (pulling out before ejaculation, etc.) – what a gross and ugly and nutty religion that does into those kinds of details in Hadith, and much more. Crazy !!

        But verses in Joshua, Deut. or Numbers do not give any indication of rape. It is taking care of the survivors of war and giving them time to mourn and then, and only then, possibility of marriage. True marriage, not Islamic marriage and temporary marriage (Muta’ متعه or Seeqe سیغه (Farsi more common term, prevalent in Shiite Iran today – terrible) You cannot escape that Allah and Muhammed supported the concept of temporary marriage, which is basically prostitution and fornication / adultery (if already married).

      • Ken Temple says:

        4. Muslims have to admit they are embarrassed by this verse, at it has already been proven to be false. that the Jews called Uzair “son of God”

      • Ken Temple says:

        7-F. Of course God has the right to make just war at the second coming of Christ – Revelation 19:11 – He will make just war. Too late after that.

        But your religion claims to make just war now, from 600s AD to today. conquering those areas it did was unjust and evil.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Yasir Qadhi even admitted that the Abbasids and Ottomans were results of sex-slaves (the title even uses those phrases), sex-maids and captives of war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEa-cM2lS_E

      • Ken Temple says:

        2. Surah 3:78 still stands – “to twist with their tongues” = oral mis-interpretation, not textual change.
        Same for 5:13 “remove words from their places / settings = take words out of context.
        Not about textual change, rather wrong oral interpretation and twisting, etc.

        There were just too many copies (of both OT and NT at the time) to cause what Islam claims that Surah 2:79 says.

        So, it stands that Surah 5:47; 5:68; 3:2-3; 10:94 demonstrate that the Qur’an never says the text of the previous Scriptures were corrupted.

  3. stewjo004 says:

    @ Ken

    1.Not able to lie
    That’s interesting Christians are always arguing when we say God doesn’t become human that God is able to do all things so I’m glad you concede there are things God doesn’t do. Furthermore, In islam God doesnt lie either first to make you look ignorant (again) God say in the Quran:

    38:83. I replied: “This is the Truth, and the Truth is all I say,”
    38:84. “I will fill Hell with you and all those that follow you…”

    Regarding “the greatest deceiver” this is referring to if someone thinks they can trick God, God will defeat them. For example, we both concede God is the Most Merciful. Some people and yes I have heard this) think they will party and sin their entire life and then when they’re old repent so they can go to Heaven. That is trying to trick God. Because they aren’t sincere God will allow them to think they’re cool and then take their life in a car crash where they didn’t have time to repent for example as it wasn’t sincere.

    2.Ebionites
    No they are by most scholarly opinion either a 1st century group and fall into “Jewish Christianiity” alongside Nazarenes etc who were the Church of Jerusalem’s descendants after the city’s fall.

    “Jewish Christians (Hebrew: יהודים נוצרים‎) were the followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Judea during the late Second Temple period (first-century). Modern scholarship is engaged in an ongoing debate as to the proper designation for Jesus’ first followers. Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity. Some modern scholars have suggested the designations “Jewish believers in Jesus” or “Jewish followers of Jesus” as better reflecting the original context. The sect integrated the belief of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and his teachings into the Jewish faith, including the observance of the Jewish law. Jewish Christianity is the foundation of Early Christianity, which later developed into Christianity. Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of a deified Jesus after his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers.”
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/christianity-2
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-jewish-christians-became-christians/

    Also the current position is it was multiple sects of Christianity and that the “Church Fathers” were too stupid to know the diffrence (which is why there is so much variance) or spouting propaganda like the claim they had a leader named “Ebion”:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=P9sYIRXZZ2MC&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=ebionites+%22Eerdmans+Dictionary+of+the+Bible%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

    3.Are you claiming to understand Qiraat now?

    4. I know you haven’t had sex in a while but that’s what adults do. As much as it’s foreign to follow God’s law to you,and not just hear people say “I go by how I feel the Holy Spirit wants” you need details sometimes. The Bibe has many detailed stories so this is kinda of hypocritical.

    Also, I fail to see the argument. God allows things and disallows them for certain times (an example would be divorce to you) There would be no difference in the divorce example (which Jesus(as) is said to have said is adultery now) and God allowing temporary marriage.

    Regarding sex slaves and rape they are clearly being given away as sex slaves:

    But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately. (Numbers 31:18)

    Just because you throw “marriage” on top of there doesn’t change it. This is actually similar to us a a woman captured in war is a “mini wife” so thank you for conceding you have no issues then. Next the Bible clearly states those little girls were raped:

    When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive, if you see a beautiful woman among them, and you desire her and want to take her as your wife…Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her. (Deut 10-14)

    5. When did I say I was embarrassed, lol? I already said imo Uzair is Azael.

    6. Lol so you agree Jesus(as) kills people on his second coming and smites infidels. Is this correct? Also I find it interesting you say it wa sevil but your fellow Christians disagreed at the time. Let’s read what they wrote:

    https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp

    Let’s look at some highlights of what your fellow Chrisitans said ahem:

    And in those days Heraclius saw a dream in which it was said to him: “Verily there shall come against you a circumcised nation, and they shall vanquish you and take possession of the land”…after a few days there appeared a man of the Arabs, from the southern districts, that is to say, from Mecca or its neighbourhood, whose name was Muhammad; and he brought back the worshippers of idols to the knowledge of the One God…the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them, on account of the council of Chalcedon, by the ancient fathers…After fighting three battles with the Romans, the Muslims conquered them. So when the chief men of the city saw these things, they went to Amr, and received a certificate of security for the city, that it might not be plundered…Then Amr, son of Al-Asi, wrote to the provinces of Egypt a letter, in which he said: “There is protection and security for the place where Benjamin, the patriarch of the Coptic Christians is, and peace from God; therefore let him come forth secure and tranquil, and administer the affairs of his Church, and the government of his nation.”…
    https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/642Egypt-conq2.asp

    Now let’s compare with your text that commands killing surrendering women and children (which is actually evil and unjust)
    https://www.openbible.info/topics/genocide

    7. Idk how you can argue against textual corruption when we have clear examples from Mark and John. You’re basically saying “Yeah there was corruption but so what, ha.” Question: Are those passages written by the authors yes or no?

    8. The verse clearly states the text is corrupted. Accept or don’t, could care less.

    • Ken Temple says:

      All of the translations of Surah 9:30 say that the Arabic word translated is Ezra and the Jews never called Ezra the son of God so your argument is defeated.
      Also the commentaries in ”The Study Quran” and Muhammad Assad’s translation and Yusuf Ali’s notes confirm this.
      Your opinion is a desperate attempt to save the Quran from an obvious error.
      https://quran.com/9/30

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

      • Ken Temple says:

        Not very clever or convincing.

        Because All Christians say that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God and the Qur’an verse parallels that with the Jews calling Ezra the son of God – also both use “the” ال and it seems clear.

        You lost that argument big time. Tovia Singer even admits no Jews every believed that Ezra was the Son of God.

        The Qur’an has lots of embarrassing statements such as this.

        The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

      • Ken Temple says:

        Also, Singer notes that the Islamic commentators say there was this one guy, one Jew who thought that. But the Qur’an and translations indicate it is plural. both for “the Jews” and “The Christians”
        الیهود = “The Jews”
        if it was singular of one guy, as Singer claims, it would have been:
        الیهودی

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        If you just kept watching you would have seen that Rabbi singer state the orthodox opinion which is that it was a group.

      • Ken Temple says:

        There is no evidence of that from Jews.
        Islam has to make stuff up to try and justify embarrassing statements that show Quran is not inspired.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        Funny people say the same about various gospel depictions of the jewish people. Regardless we have no record of any jew during the time complaining that the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was wrong. the Quran and sunnah should be taken as informative in this respect.

      • Ken Temple says:

        But the gospels are clear as to the various groups, The Pharisees, Sadducees, the chief priests, The scribes, the Herodians, etc.,
        versus
        the crowds, the people, and the disciples is very clear.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        Also do you admit that your point about the verse was premature?

      • Ken Temple says:

        Surah 9:30 ?
        No way, no.

        It says that the Christians think the Messiah is the son of God and is parallel with the Jews thinking as right as the son of God.

        this is clearly wrong ( that Jews thought Ezra was the son of God)

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        I meant premature in ref to this comment

        “الیهود = “The Jews”
        if it was singular of one guy, as Singer claims, it would have been:
        الیهودی”

        As Rabbi singer clearly states the orthodox view that it was a group of jews.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, he agreed that the Jews have never said that; but he said the Muslim commentators said that one guy said that. He thought the Muslim commentators handled it well but really, there is no evidence for this.
        Obviously, I don’t think it was brilliant or clever; it just appears that Mohammed is making something up in the Quran, and the commentators are desperately trying to find something to back it up.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        …At 3:21 of the video onward, literally right after he said it was one guy he goes on to say that the “general consensus of Islamic scholars” is that it was a group of jews. Again if the claim were so outlandish and false during the time then why do we have no record of jews disagreeing with the prophet on this point?

      • Ken Temple says:

        They are just making up something with no evidence.
        As he said, “no Jew has ever said that”

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        He said no jew HE knows has ever said that implying mondern day jews. He is clearly of the view that a past sect of jews existed who believed this in the video agreeing with the consensus of islamic commentators. Also i’m not gonna let the fact you attempted to misrepresent the video slide.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Regarding “the greatest deceiver” this is referring to if someone thinks they can trick God, God will defeat them.

      there is a sense to that which is true, under God’s sovereignty, He allows people to be deceived as His judgement on them and Reformed / Calvinistic Christians agree with that. (as in 2 Thessalonians 2:11) But the Qur’anic verses say that God (Allah) actually does the deception itself, whereas the Bible teaches that God sovereignly works in circumstances and allows Satan, demons, and evil people to actually do the deception. In Job chapters 1-2, and 2 Cor. 12, and Luke 22:31, it is the evil demons and Satan that actually do the evil and deceptions.

      The true God is not able to lie. God cannot do things that are against His nature.
      “God is not the author of sin nor hath any fellowship with any (sin) therein”

      But again, in Islam, Allah actually does the deception itself.

      Here is the proper doctrine:
      God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4
      1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18
      2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Psalm 5:4; Habakkuk 1:13; Titus 1:2
      3 Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11
      4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3-5

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        (but it is He Who deceives them) means, He lures them further into injustice and misguidance.

        http://www.recitequran.com/tafsir/en.ibn-kathir/4:142

        Not to mention the verses and explanations yo provided don’t account for when the God of the bible directly deceives people. Like in Jeremiah 4:10 he deceives the Israelites and tells them there will be peace but war came to them. This is an outright lie that God made acc to the OT. Or when he sends a lying spirit to deceives false prophets in 1 Kings 22:22. Now I know you’ll say that sending and doing the act yourself are different and in a sense this is true. However the fact remains that sending or causing a sin to occur is a sin in itself.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, Jer. 4:10 is Jeremiah’s wrong interpretation of events. God’s judgment on sin is not deception. It is Jeremiah’s emotional and wrong idea that he thought they would have peace, but God brings judgement on them because of their sins.

        1 Kings 22:22 is God allowing an evil demon to do the deception, not God doing the act of deceiving Himself. It is the same principle as 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        God is not merely allowing it, he is SENDING the lying spirit/demon.

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, an evil spirit (demon) came forward and volunteered to do the actual deception. Read the context please. 1 Kings 22:21-23

        21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

        22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

        “‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

        “‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        19Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. 20And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to march up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one suggested this, and another that.

        will entice
        יְפַתֶּה֙ (yə·p̄at·teh)
        Verb – Piel – Imperfect – third person masculine singular
        Strong’s Hebrew 6601: To open, be, roomy, to be, simple, delude

        God is clearly the one instigating this behavior. the volunteer only came forward at God’s question/command.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Not a problem,
        God did the same initiative in Job chapter 1.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        your missing the point. God is portrayed as not merely allowing the spirits or demons to do their own will but a going forth on his behalf. And like i said before if something is a sin for God to do then God sending someone to do that very thing should also be considered a sin. for example rape is a horrible sin and sending someone to rape another is also a horrible sin.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “But again, in Islam, Allah actually does the deception itself.”

        (but it is He Who deceives them) means, He lures them further into injustice and misguidance.

        http://www.recitequran.com/tafsir/en.ibn-kathir/4:142

      • Ken Temple says:

        Praise God we have James 1:13-14

        13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        …sigh…look Ken the tafsir i quoted isn’t saying that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala tempts anyone its saying that the hypocrites are allowed by God to continue in their own wishes and sinful attitudes which results in their misguidance. This is no different than when “God hardens the heart” of certain individuals which we both believe from our respective scriptures.

    • Ken Temple says:

      “Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her. (Deut 10-14)”

      No translation I investigated translates that word as “force”, rather humbled or humiliated, or dishonored her. The dishonor or humiliation is the failure of the marriage and sending her away, divorcing her; it is NOT rape. There are just too many other passages that condemn rape.

      Also, you left out the reference of what chapter – it is Deuteronomy 21:10-14
      see the main translations at Bible gateway: NIV, NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, etc.

      the passage is a protection against mistreating and abusing a woman, after a man decides to divorce her or sends away. It is not approving of the divorce or sending her away, it saying that if a man does that, then the passage is saying that she cannot be abused or mistreated or sold as a slave. God allowed people to sin and divorce, etc. but the main principle is that “God hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16) If they have a hard heart and are going to divorce her, then the law is against mistreating her IF the man is hard-hearted.

      It is similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 about divorce – “because of the hardness of your heart” – means that if the man becomes hard hearted and wants a divorce, the certificate of divorce is a protection for the woman in order for her to remarry – to show that the divorce is final and legal, although it is not the ideal and not what God wanted.

    • Ken Temple says:

      The quotes from the Jewish virtual library do not connect the first century Jewish Christians with the Ebionites. Just saying “modern scholarship”, etc. does nothing. the early church fathers are still correct on this issue. Irenaeus, Ephiphanius, Justin Martyr, etc.

      The Jewish Christians, the disciples of Jesus and the apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and James and Jude the half brothers of Jesus, were all in perfect unity in their doctrines.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/did-paul-preach-a-different-gospel-than-peter-james-and-john/

    • Ken Temple says:

      You really have no argument that can overturn the fact that the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures as is, at the time of Muhammad – 3:2-3; 5:47; 5:68; 10:94 and many others prove this. The fact that we have our Scriptures today that agrees with ancient manuscripts that are older than 630s AD proves that we are right and Islam is proven to be a false religion.

      and Surah 2:79 and 3:78 and 5:13 do not overturn those above, rather they only show that some Jews were misinterpreting things orally, not that the text was changed.

      My article still stands.

  4. Vaqas Rehman says:

    Since you brought up the usual spiel of “Islam forbids adoption?! but what about the children?!”

    many of these links and more can be found via a simple google search “adoption in islam”

    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/omar-suleiman/reviving-a-lost-sunnah-adoption-and-foster-care-in-islam/?utm_content=95053775&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-1363195707041177&fbclid=IwAR3b5KWHd5xip7eG2i4qpULwZyE_lcPJ1soCQhs3L

    so no children are not left suffering in islam and in fact are better off. as islam handles adoption the way it should be handled.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics advises that “Adoption should not be a secret. Every youngster needs to have an honest understanding of his origin. Adopted children who have not been told seem to sense that somehow they are different; this nagging intuition can influence their self-image. The longer you wait, the harder it will be to discuss it with your child. Also, he is liable to find out from someone else—perhaps by overhearing the conversations of relatives, or from teasing by neighborhood children who have learned from their own parents that he is adopted” (www.healthychildren.org).

    Moreover most sites clarify what they mean when they say adoption is haram and differentiate from sponsoring orphans if they choose that vernacular. such as here

       https://www.islamweb.net/en/article/135420/adoption-in-islam

  5. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    “The fact that Yasir Qadhi heard this all growing up is telling. Muslims know this is the case.

    Qadhi is trying to over-come the embarrassment of something that is obviously very bad – both the way that Muhammad got Zaynab Bint Jahash, (Surah 33 and several Hadiths and Aisha’s statement, “wow, it seems Allah is quick to fulfill your desires.” etc. )
    and also the subsequent abolishment of adoption.

    Embarrassing for you guys, I know.”

    https://quranandbibleblog.com/2020/01/18/hadith-database-hadith-of-aisha-on-allah-fulfilling-the-desires-of-prophet-muhammad/

    The only thing embarrassing and telling is your apparent inability to read what is in front of you Ken.
    It’s not just Dr Sh yasir qadhi i gave several links and explained how even those that say adoption is haram explain the difference and reason why and allow sponsoring and taking care of children just not pretending that its theirs. Islam handles adoption the way it should be handled.

    “Embarrassing for you guys, I know.”
    Is that the only response you have? At least have the decency to admit you were wrong and educate yourself on the subject. It’s troll like behavior like this thats the source of QB’s and Stews frustration with you. Quite frankly I see where their coming from now.

    • Ken Temple says:

      When you read the Qur’an Surah 33 and put it together with the Hadith narrations, it seems obvious that Muhammad is justifying his marriage to Zaynab Bint Jahash by getting special revelations, and even Yasir Qadhi is unknowingly admitting this, because of Muhammad’s embarrassment over wanting her and her wanting him.

      Several Iranians have told me over the years after they read this section in Surah 33, they realized what was going on and starting crying (because they know what this means); and it caused them to question Islam and eventually led them out of Islam and towards Christ and Christianity.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Also Iranians / Persians have questioned Sunni Islam for a long time, because of Omar Ibn Al Khattab’s (2nd Caliph) unjust wars / Jihads / Qatals and the subsequent history against the Persian Empire that lasted from 636 AD into the 900s of subjugation by force.

        Islam is a war-like religion that seeks to conquer the world by force. The whole doctrines of Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb demonstrate this, based on Surah 9:5 and 9:28-30 and numerous Hadith and 8:39.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        I’m seriously wondering if your doing this on purpose…
        No Ken if you combine the AUTHENTIC hadith reports with the proper reading of the Quran you’d see that the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ′alayhe wassallam did not “want” her but did everything he could to avoid a relationship with her. But God wanted her for him in order to prove a point regardless of the cultural stigma. Also your quite frankly sad deflections to “islam is a warlike religion” are not taken seriously since you approve of even worse violence in the OT and support similar violence during the second coming and fulfillment of the NT. Your only reason for why its bad for Islam and allowed for Christianity boils down to nothing more than “your faith bad! my faith good!” As I said such logic is flawed. Now will you stop sidetracking and deal with the argument at hand and how you were proved wrong?

    • Ken Temple says:

      QB (Faiz) behavior is unacceptable and a bad witness for your religion. Sometimes Stew’s was also, but most of the time he knows how to behave, but it comes out sometimes.

      It is like the recent post Paul Williams put up on Muhammad Hijab.

      https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/08/15/doing-dawah-or-being-a-professional-troll-mohammed-hijab-needs-to-pick-one/

      Bad behavior is a bad witness for your religion.

      And I agree that Sam Shamoun’s bad behavior and anger and name calling, etc. is also a bad witness for Christianity.

      That is why I agree the way James White conducts himself.

  6. stewjo004 says:

    @ Vaqas

    Yeah, this is common for Temple which is why I don’t take the time to get things anymore. For example, I just quoted two dictionaries saying the meaning means corruption, Temple ignores it and continues with his uneducated opinion. How stupid would I have to be to go quote more sources to someone like that?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Corruption of oral interpretation is different than corruption of the text that changes doctrine. ( as Islam claims that all of NT is “Swiss cheese” your own phrase “Frankenstein book”)

  7. stewjo004 says:

    @ Vaqas
    Here for giggles quote this to Ken from the Quran:

    19:83. Didn’t you notice that I am the One who allowed the demons to be unleashed against them to slowly incite them more and more?

    Then ask Ken is God the ultimate source for all things including evil and then have fun watch the twisting begin.

  8. stewjo004 says:

    @ Temple

    Show in the Quran or a hadith that indicates its Ezra. Don’t worry I’ll wait why you get that for me.

    Also, the translation is in the Good News Translation
    Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.
    https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/21-14.htm

    The other translators are softening it, as the same word “anah” is used for rape in many other places, examples:
    https://biblehub.com/genesis/34-2.htm
    https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-29.htm
    https://biblehub.com/judges/19-24.htm
    https://biblehub.com/judges/20-5.htm
    https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/13-14.htm
    https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/13-22.htm
    https://biblehub.com/lamentations/5-11.htm

    Also contextually, they just killed all the men, women, children, babies and livestock of the city but oh we draw the line at rape ya’ll.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Sam Shamoun, when he sticks to content and reasoning, usually does a good job.
      He answered the question about “does the old testament condone rape?”.
      of course it does not.

      https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

    • Ken Temple says:

      Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” ( Quran 4:24) This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
      حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ مَيْسَرَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ صَالِحٍ أَبِي الْخَلِيلِ، عَنْ أَبِي عَلْقَمَةَ الْهَاشِمِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَ يَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ بَعْثًا إِلَى أَوْطَاسٍ فَلَقُوا عَدُوَّهُمْ فَقَاتَلُوهُمْ فَظَهَرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَصَابُوا لَهُمْ سَبَايَا فَكَأَنَّ أُنَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي ذَلِكَ ‏{‏ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ‏}‏ أَىْ فَهُنَّ لَهُمْ حَلاَلٌ إِذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهُنَّ ‏.‏

      Collection Sunan Abu Dawud
      Dar-us-Salam reference Hadith 2155

      • stewjo004 says:

        Lol before giving a more robust rebuttal are you conceding words can have more than one meaning in different passages? If so you’re argument about textual corruption with Surah Baqarah and Imran fails as that is what I’ve been arguing. So which is it, do you accept this or not?

        Also, where does this hadith state anything about rape? It’s funny you reject when your text explicitly states this: (Which according to your/Shamoun logic we can stab surrendering women, children and babies but draw the line at raping them even though we happen to use the same word in other texts) but you do Shamoun’s classic reading between the line fallacy when it comes to ours.

        PS
        Shamoun is a laughing stock on the blog and got lit up by QB and couldn’t respond. Please look at some of the classic series:

        “The Bible’s embarrasssing error about rabbits “chewing the cud” and Shamoun’s bumbling/hilarious attempts to respond.”
        https://quranandbibleblog.com/2018/10/20/on-rabbits-and-rumination-answering-islams-incompetence/

        “Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is not just the site of the temple, but the entire Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary, contrary to Shamoun’s pseudo-scholarly claims.”
        https://quranandbibleblog.com/2019/04/14/al-isra-and-the-temple-in-the-islamic-sources-a-response-to-sam-shamoun/

        And then, of course, yours truly bully beatdown of Shamoun:
        https://quranandbibleblog.com/2020/03/23/is-the-torah-like-the-quran-or-is-it-not/

        So his name don’t mean squat around here

      • Ken Temple says:

        On that article about rape, he was accurate; the other comments are red herrings to obfuscate and confuse.

      • stewjo004 says:

        @ Kn

        How is that a red herring you are trying to (again) do verbak gymnastics when your text states explicitly rape but then trying to imply rape in a text that does not say rape. As stated these people kill women, children and babies so what makes you think they won’t rape?

      • Ken Temple says:

        No, it is not rape.

      • Ken Temple says:

        God never approves of rape, but your texts do -Surah 4:24 – sex slaves.
        Even Yasir Qadhi admits this in the video where he says the Abbasids and the Ottomans came from the sex slaves -the survivors of war and Jihads – this is the nature of Islam. Surah 8:39; 9:29
        Dar al Islam vs. Dar al Harb

      • stewjo004 says:

        @ Ken

        You’re not answering, so He approves of stabbing and bludgeoning women, children and babies to death but draws the line at rape because the text says “marriage” in it (like how ISIS does) and we’re supposed to ignore the word used for rape in the verse? So where is this moral line and when is it okay to kill surrendering women and children in your religion?

      • Ken Temple says:

        Bad translations.
        Shamoun showed proper translation in his article.

      • Ken Temple says:

        In regards to second one, ‛ânâh, this word is often translated here as “humbled her” or “violated her” with the meaning that her virginity is being defiled. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes that the word can refer to “consensual encounters in which a woman’s virginity is lost (Deut. 21:14; 22:24, 29).”(15) Notice William Mounce affirms Deuteronomy 22:29’s use of ‛ânâh refers not to rape as some Muslims allege, but to virginity being lost in a consensual situation.

        From Thompson’s article, link above.

      • stewjo004 says:

        @ Ken

        Lol so you’re basic argument can be summed up as “not literal” several problems here:

        1. How does one determine the basis for what literal and metaphorical other than embarrassment? Like Black Hebrew Israelites when they quote their “prophecies” this is just playing with the text.

        2. The text is giving actual casualty numbers. Shamoun’s argument of “exaggeration” means the “inspired” authors said one thing happened which didn’t which means the Holy Spirit inspired a lie so there goes the entirety of the theology.

        3. The text is very clear it’s not exaggerating, how can we tell? Numbers 32:
        7Then they waged war against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed every male…9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and their children, and they plundered all their herds, flocks, and goods. 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites had lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and carried away all the plunder and spoils, both people and animals. 12They brought the captives, spoils, and plunder to Moses… 14But Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who were returning from the battle. 15“Have you spared all the women?” he asked them…kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.
        https://biblehub.com/bsb/numbers/31.htm

        If it was a “exaggeration” (aka a lie) why would he be mad at the women and little boys being alive? Also even of we go with “exaggeration” he is still ordering the death of “some” little boys and taking little girls as sex slaves. Which brings back the original question when is it morally justified to kill women and children in your religion?

        4. Appealing to the contradiction of the group still living doesn’t help. That is just made another issue.

        5. His appeal to Paul Copan also doesn’t help and again proves the Holy Spirit inspired a lie.

        6. Regarding his desperate appeal to the Quran, the verse only mentions the fight with Goliath and nothing about Amekalites or committing genocide thi is just one of the many ways the Quran corrects “exaggerations” (aka lies) in the Hebbrew Bible

        7. Ibn Ishaq is unreliable Shamoun knows this yet mentions it to decieve his uneducated audience. Also, the Torah and the Gospel are not the Bible.

        8. Appealing to God taking life and ordering the creation to do it are 2 different things.

        9. You can tell he is struggling with Numbers (i.e. the thing were talking about) the text means to take these little virgin girls as sex slaves. it literally means “devour them”

        10. Appealing to Thomson does not help as Deuteronomy 22:29 strengthens my argument:
        …28If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, 29the man who raped her must pay the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated (anah) her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

        So she was “defiled” in a non-consensual situation. Now:

        If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored (anah) her.

        So yes in the same book of Deuteronomy the author uses similar wording. So thanks for the help on that one.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Both Thompson and Copan and Shamoun’s articles are convincing and powerful, and you are not.
        the articles and arguments stand for the truth of the Bible and the falsehood of Islam

  9. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    Please show where Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi

    1. refers to them as “sex slaves”
    2. says they were raped

    Also while we’re at it
    3. How is what you’re claiming of our scripture different or worse than what is portrayed in the OT?
    4. Is sending someone to rape another person a sin on the sender, yes or no?

    please answer the questions when you have the time to Ken.

  10. Vaqas Rehman says:

    @Ken Temple

    “Both Thompson and Copan and Shamoun’s articles are convincing and powerful, and you are not.
    the articles and arguments stand for the truth of the Bible and the falsehood of Islam”

    Is that the only response you have to Stews points?

    • Ken Temple says:

      Yes, for now; because of time. The content of the articles stand. The true God, the God of the OT and NT never approves of rape. Islam clearly says “whom your right hand possesses” (sex slaves) ( Qur’an 4:24 and context is shown in the Hadith); are for the fighters in Jihad / warfare.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        @Ken Temple

        “Yes, for now; because of time. The content of the articles stand. The true God, the God of the OT and NT never approves of rape. Islam clearly says “whom your right hand possesses” (sex slaves) ( Qur’an 4:24 and context is shown in the Hadith); are for the fighters in Jihad / warfare.”

        Except for the fact that you’ve been refuted on all these points…

      • Ken Temple says:

        No; you guys have not refuted anything.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        Yes we have

      • Ken Temple says:

        No; not at all.
        The NT over-powers all your arguments.

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        No it doesn’t.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Yes, the NT over-powers the Qur’an and Islam completely.

      • Ken Temple says:

        The NT is the true Injeel.
        الانجیل حقیقی

      • Vaqas Rehman says:

        Right because we all know jesus Alayhis Salam went around preaching mathew mark luke john and the letters of paul.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Yes, Jesus taught all that is in the 4 gospels that says He did; and He inspired Paul and Peter and John to write their letters and the author of Hebrews too. All the NT is inspired by God.

        Jesus clearly taught these things:
        Mark 10:45
        Mark 14:24
        Mark 14:60-64
        Mark chapters 8, 9, 10
        “the Son of Man must go to the cross, be killed, and on the third day, He will rise from the dead”, etc.

    • stewjo004 says:

      @ Vaqas

      Pretty common for Temple. Also trying to figure out where we denied concubinage being a legit relationship between a man and a woman. I’m just waiting for Temple’s proof they can be raped before I take this hadith that says they can’t and slap him with it…

      • Ken Temple says:

        God made Adam and Eve. (one man and one woman)
        Polygamy was wrong and concubinage was wrong.
        God allowed it, but humans doing that was wrong. God did not approve of that.
        There is a lot in historical narrative that is recording the sins of human kind, but God does not approve of it nor command it.

Comments are closed.