Dr. Mariottini has given us a great post giving us two important links regarding mythical creatures in the Bible. The KJV translates some words as "unicorn" and "dragon" but neither of these are given modern translations. These are great information. I mean did the writers of the Old Testament have the creatures depicted below in mind? Nah. Read the links below.
Greg Koukl was interviewed by Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. It is awesome. I've grown to really like Greg Koukl and his ministry. He offered great advice to any one for witnessing and studying and engaging with the culture. I really liked this interview.
On a recent interview from Iron Sharpens Iron, Martin Fromm was interviewed and presented why as a Jew he accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is really interesting. He says that if you honestly search the Old Testament, you can to no other conclusion that Jesus is the MessiahJews have been looking forward. He explains it really well. I love it. We see that without a Temple and the sacrifices Jews don't have a way to follow the scriptures as they have been laid out without a Temple or Blood sacrifices. Fromm also pointed out that the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD because we would have no way to apply the prophecies to validate His identity. Awesome!
Here is a lecture from Adan Rashid in which he tries to show that the Bible foretells the advent of Muhammad. I am amazed that he says that now that we have the Qur'an we don't need the Bible. Rashid spends quite a bit of time in the video trying to show a tradition Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. He ends up arguing that the Bible is proof that Muhammad is what the Muslims say heas and that he had to get his knowledge from God because he could not read and did not have access to other books that he is accused of copying. I agree. Had he had access to those books, then maybe the Qur'an would not contain errors in describing the same events the Bible does or Christian theology. Then Muhammad turned around and taught that Muslims should revere the Torah, the Prophets, and the Injil (New Testament) and had he know how different his message was I doubt that he would have told his followers to read and understand them. If a Muslim is going to obey Muhammad, then he/she can't throw out the Bible. so what does the Muslim to do to reconcile this? Some ignore it, others like Rashid attempt to reconcile the Bible and the Qur'an bytrying to find events and persons from Islam in the Bible text. How well does this work?
Unfortunately, not very well. I'm not an Islamic scholar and I am willing to give Rashid some credit because he was attempting to cover a lot quickly. Let's look at two of the Bible passages he cited and see if his exegesis can bear any weight.
Isaiah 29:12
12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."
Rashid said that this passage is referring to Muhammad because the prophet could not read. He interprets the scroll as the being the Qur'an. Two problems that jump out at me is I thought Muhammad dictated the Qur'an and was not handed a scroll. The other problem I have is context. The chapter is about punishment on Israel. Does Rashid really want to take verse 12 out of it's context and apply it to someone who it is not addressed to? Guess so.
Isaiah 42
Jews see the first part of this chapter as talking about the promised Messiah. Christians say it is Jesus. Rashid is arguing that it's talking about Muhammad. He seemed to focus on verse 1 - 9 so i will too.
6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
7 to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
How does that describe Muhammad. There are no recorded miracles of Muhammad healing blind people...but Jesus did.
Using
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands will put their hope."
Rashid argues that the passage refers to Muhammad because at it height Islam reached the peninsula on which Spain and Portugal sit. He said that that a peninsula is the same as an island and that's not true. This just does not work. You will also notice Rashid creatively uses geography to show his point. That is also a stretch.
I noticed that Rashid's audience does not know the Bible and he basically expects them to accept him as an authority, but I hope that they look themselves to see if he is correct...because he's not.
I have heard of this book but I haven't read it. Here is a wonderful opportunity. I've been following Dr. James White's ministry since 2003 and I have heard of this book. It's a chance to read what Dr. White would say when he witnesses to a Mormon!
My wife recently asked me to find the proof that Creflo Dollar has preached a heretical error. It took me literally 5 minutes to find this (3 of which to boot up and log on to the Internet). The contention is that Dollar has claimed that because God promises his people riches that Jesus cannot return until all of God's people are rich. He went as far as trying to tell that Jesus will return by 2012. Where to start? I'm leary of anyone trying to tell us when Jesus will return. Second, Jesus said "The poor will be with you always." (Mark 14:7) Therefore we cannot interpret Proverbs 13:22 as saying that we must become rich if we will be righteous. This video does a great job discussing the subject.
Iron Sharpens Iron is a wonderful broadcast. Pastor Eric Redmond was a guest talking about how he came tom accept Reformed Theology. I could really identify with him. He used to have the same problem I have with "Limited Atonement". He talked about how your theology can cost you your pulpit if people don't like your theology. It is an awesome interview. There was a call from a man who was part of the Church of God in Christ from Canada. That was interesting being I'm from that denomination.
Bart Ehrman appeared on Unbelievable broadcast. The second time he was on Ehrman discussed his book on The Problem of Evil. Read the introduction of the broadcast:
Bart Ehrman lost his faith altogether when he confronted the problem of how a loving, powerful God can allow suffering. In his new book "God's Problem" he states that the Bible contains different and unconvincing explanations to the issue. Richard Swinburne is a reknowned Christian philosopher. He answers Bart's objections with arguments from his own book "Providence and the Problem of Evil".
Ehrman is wrong our suffering does not invalidate God's existence. I disagree with what he said about Job. God does answer his question about suffering. Sometimes it is to punish evil....sometimes we deserve it....and sometimes it's for a purpose. I agree with Ehrman that free will does not answer the question. I agree with Swineburne that some suffering is for God to show or teach something. He's God....He can do that. God has every right. Ehrman is wrong the Bible does show God is in control over the evil forces that cause evil and Swineburne got him for that. This was a great interaction. Go to the link below to listen to it.
Dr. Mariottini has posted a great article about the Hebrew word "tanin" and how it has been translated in many place s int Bible. Sometimes it's translated "monster" or "dragon" or "snake" or "crocodile". It's used in the story where Moses' rod becomes tanin before Pharaoh. Very interesting!
I'm fascinated by the work of Bart Ehrman. How can he do such very good scholarship deciphering textual criticisms yet come to such different conclusions about how reliable the Bible is than Peter Williams, Dan Wallace, or James White? Why does he overstate the differences the textual variants make? These variants have been known for centuries, why would it only matter now? If Christian theology rose and fell on these variants, why hasn't it affected Christian doctrine. The funny thing is that most of the cults and theological differences giving rise to so many different generations are not based on the important differences in manuscripts. Ehrman's arguments are based on the New Testament because there are far fewer textual variants of the Old Testament. Ehrman is also not willing to apply the same rules for accepting historical documents for other historical documents than he does for the New Testament. Ehrman also ignores the wide spreadness of the manuscripts and there are more than one line of transmission,
One thing that is very interesting in this discussion centered around Mark 1: 41. Ehrman argues that a few manuscripts say Jesus became angry instead of Jesus being filled with compassion and that shows the manuscript was changed. I liked how Peter Williams answered that. I think that Williams is right.
James White has posted the television program appearance he did in London back in February 2010 in which he defended the reliability of the New Testament. Great Stuff!
In continuing his series of wonderful interviews with top apologists, Brian Auten interviews pastor, teacher, and apologist Phil Fernandez. I loved the interview.
Fernandez answered some great questions and gave great advice to people starting out in Apologetics. Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Phil Fernandes
Dr. James White was on British radio twice on his recent trip to the United Kingdom. In one of them he debated Sir. Anthony Buzzard on the reality of the Trinity. Buzzard denies the the Trinity because he denies Jesus' pre-existence before His birth. Buzzard does not denies Jesus as the only path of salvation but does not think the Trinity makes sense. James White on the other hand believes that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity. I think that their debate was most of who Jesus is. It is wonderful! They really hammered at the text of the Bible and each other to made sure to work out and attempted to exegete the Hebrew and Greek texts. I think White did a great job and I have to admit that Buzzard is not as big a heretic as I first thought. Well Worth listening!!!
I don't know how this slipped through my information dragnet but here is an interview President Obama did last week! You know we are in trouble when the President does an exclusive interview with Fox News!