A Dawagandist Proves that the Holy Bible is Incorruptible! A post by Sam Shamoun

A Dawagandist Proves that the Holy Bible is Incorruptible!

It seems that Muslim-turned apostate-turned Muslim Christophobe again Paul Williams is on a roll since he keeps churning out posts which end up proving that Christianity is actually true and that Islam is necessarily false.

Take, for instance, his post where he quotes from the late Muslim convert Charles le Gai Eaton who explains why the Quran cannot be compared with the Holy Bible. Williams writes:

In the brilliant work ‘The Message of the Quran; Translation by Muhammad Asad‘ Charles le Gai Eaton wrote a Prologue. It is almost worth buying the Qur’an for this chapter alone.

Muslims are often asked why they refuse to adapt their scripture to the “needs of the modern age”. The Qur’an itself answers this question: “There is no changing the words of God”. The fact that it was sent down in the seventh century of the Christian era is irrelevant. You do not wear out a diamond by constant handling and the passage of the centuries cannot erode the words of God. That, after all, is the whole point of a divine intervention in the affairs of the world. The act – the revelation – is necessarily located in a particular period of time but it is, in itself, timeless, and Islamic theology defines the essence of the Qur’an as “uncreated”, therefore eternal. (Can we compare the Qur’an & and the Bible?, June 3, 2014: http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/06/03/5004/)

Pay close attention to Eaton’s comments here. The reason why the Muslim scripture cannot be changed or adapted to fit the needs of the modern age is because of the Quran’s assertion that “there is no changing the words of God,” a statement which appears several times therein:

And certainly apostles before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the apostles. S. 6:34 Shakir

Say: “Shall I seek for judge other than God? – when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.” They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. S. 6:114-115 Y. Ali

For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of God. This is indeed the supreme felicity. S. 10:64 Y. Ali

AND CONVEY [to the world] whatever has been revealed to thee of thy Sustainer’s writ. There is nothing that could alter His words; and thou canst find no refuge other than with Him. S. 18:27 Muhammad Asad

Eaton is basically arguing that since the Muslim scripture is God’s word, and since God’s words can never be changed, the Quran therefore can never be changed. Here, divinely revealed scripture is being equated with God’s unchangeable words.

Now this places Williams in a dilemma since the same Quran refers to the Torah, Zabur (Psalms), and Injil (Gospel) as revelations that Allah sent down as guidance and light for all mankind. The Quran further states that these revelations were in the possessions of the Jews and Christians who were commanded to live and judge by them:

He descended on you The Book with the truth, confirming to what (is) between His hands, and He descended the Torah and the New Testament/Bible. From before guidance to the people, and He descended the Separator of Right and Wrong/Koran, that those who disbelieved with God’s verses , for them (is) a strong (severe) torture, and God (is) glorious/mighty , (owner) of a revenge/punishment. S. 3:3-4 Muhammad Ahmed – Samira http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/st19.htm

O ye to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what we have sent down confirmatory of the Scripture which is in your hands, ere we efface your features, and twist your head round backward, or curse you as we cursed the sabbath-breakers: and the command of God was carried into effect. S. 4:47 Rodwell

Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms; And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses; S. 4:163-164 Pickthall

And how (do) they ask you to judge/rule, and at them (is) the Torah/Old Testament, in it (is) God’s judgment/rule, then they turn away from after that, and those are not with the believing. That We descended the Torah/Old Testament, in it (is) guidance and light, the prophets those who submitted/surrendered, judge/rule with it, to those who guided/Jews, and the knowledgeable Lord worshippers, and the religious scholars with what they memorized/safe kept (learned) from God’s Book, and they were not on it witnessing/present; so do not fear the people and fear Me, and do not buy/volunteer with My signs/verses a small price, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, they are the disbelievers. And We wrote/decreed on them in it, that the self (is) with the self, and the eye (is) with the eye, and the nose (is) with the nose, and the ear (is) with the ear, and the tooth (is) with the tooth, and the wounds/cuts (are) equal revenge/punishment equal to crime, so who gave charity (forgave) with it, so it is cover/substitution for him, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, those are the unjust/oppressors. And We sent after (following) on their tracks with Jesus, Mary’s son confirming for what (is) between his hands from the Torah/Old Testament, and We gave him the New Testament/Bible in it (is) guidance and light, and confirming to what (is) between his hands from the Torah/Old Testament, and guidance and a sermon/advice/warning to the fearing and obeying. And the New Testament’s/Bible’s people should judge/rule with what God descended in it, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, they are the debauchers. And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to what (is) between his hands from The Book, and guarding/protecting on it, so judge/rule between them with what God descended and do not follow their self attractions for desires about what came to you from the truth… S. 5:43-48 Muhammad Ahmed – Samira http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/st19.htm

those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down WITH THEM in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperers.’ S. 7:157 Arberry

The only Scriptures which the Jews and Christians have always possessed, especially at the time of Muhammad, are the Old and New Testaments respectively. As such, the Quran must be referring to the Old and New Testaments when it mentions the revelations that Allah sent down before the time of Muhammad.

In other words, in its historical context the terms Torah and Zabur could only be referring to the books of the Old Testament, with the Injil/Gospel being a reference to the New Testament writings. There is simply no way around this fact.

Noted Christian apologist and author John Gilchrist’s exposition of the Quran’s repeated testimony to the preservation and authority of the Torah and Injil, which were in the possession of the Jews and Christians at Muhammad’s time, is worth quoting here at length:

This passage teaches quite plainly that the Jews (named in Surah 5.44) ‘have the Torah’ (inda hum – ‘with them’), a statement which can yield only one possible interpretation – the book was in their possession at the time of Muhammad and, as the verse also states that it was these same Jews who were coming to Muhammad for judgment, it is clear that it speaks of the Jews who lived in the environment of Medina. This means that the scripture of the Jews of Medina, which they had in their possession at the time of Muhammad, was the true Torah and the same as that which was possessed by all the Jews of the world. Now throughout their history the Jews have known only one Scripture – the books of the Old Testament as we know them today. From centuries before the time of Jesus Christ, when the Septuagint translation was done, down to this very day (and therefore right throughout the lifetime of Muhammad), the Kitab of the Jews has always been nothing other than the Old Testament as we know it.

The Qur’an nowhere suggests that the Torah is any book other than that which the Jews themselves accept as the Torah and, although Muhammad obviously assumed that the Jewish Scripture had the form of a book revealed to Moses by God, he nonetheless confirmed that this Scripture was indeed that which the Jews themselves regarded as the Torah. The Qur’an thus, perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless quite specifically, confirms that the Old Testament is the genuine Word of God and the authentic scripture of the Jews. A Syrian Christian convert from Islam, in his excellent work Minarul Haqq, says of Surah 5.47 quoted above:

Consider this: the Tourat, in which are the commands of God, is here affirmed to be in use by the Jews; the Scripture which, as shown above, is genuine and free from touch. Let the candid believer lay it to heart. (Muir, The Beacon of Truth, p. 92).

The same principles apply to the New Testament. In this case the Qur’an describes the Christian Scriptures as the Injil, meaning the Gospel. Once again it has used a title which the possessors of that scripture also use for it. The Christian world knows the whole of the New Testament and the sum of its teaching as the Gospel (Mark 1.1, Romans 1.1). The Qur’an also admits that the Injil was in the possession of the Christians at the time of Muhammad

The Ahlul-Injil are obviously intended to be the Christians who are here commanded, like the Jews, to decide matters according to what Allah has revealed in their scriptures, As this passage is likewise clearly addressed to Muhammad’s Christian contemporaries, its teaching begs the question: how could the Christians be expected to judge by the Injil unless they had it in their possession? Once again, as with the Jewish Scripture, the Christian world has known only one scripture from centuries before Muhammad down to this very day. The Kitab of the Christian Church throughout its history has also been only one book – the New Testament as we know it.

By admitting that the revealed Gospel (the Injil) is in the possession of the Christians and that it is the book which the Christians themselves accept as the Gospel (for the Qur’an again nowhere suggests that the Injil is any other scripture than the one in the custody of the Christians at Muhammad’s time), the Qur’an is giving frank witness to the New Testament as the revealed Word of God. The author of the famous sixteenth-century apologetic, Quadruplex Reprobatio, said to be John of Wales but more probably a Spaniard, quoting the previous verse which states that the Gospel by which the Christians were to judge contained hudaan and nuurun – ‘a guidance and light’ (Surah 5.49), also reasoned that the scripture of the Christians in their possession at the time of Muhammad must have been the authentic Word of God.

But God, he argued, could not have said that there was guidance and light in the Gospel if it were corrupt. (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 50)…

We have seen earlier in this chapter that the Old and New Testaments both date back to centuries before Muhammad and that there is no historical evidence of any kind to support the claim that they have been changed, or that the original scriptures of the Jews and the Christians were something else. As the Qur’an clearly regards the scriptures of these two groups as they existed in Muhammad’s time to be the exact revelations of God, it therefore testifies not only to the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments but also to their divine origin. The Qur’an thus incontrovertibly testifies to the whole Bible as the unchanged Word of God. In another similar verse the Qur’an says that the Jews and the Christians will find Muhammad mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which, it again says, are inda hum – ‘amongst them’ (Surah 7.157). How could such a mention in any event be found if such scriptures no longer existed? Once again the Qur’an testifies to the authenticity of the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians which they had in their possession at the time, and such scriptures could only be the Old and New Testaments as we know them.

It clearly intimates that the Pentateuch and the Gospel were current amongst the Jews and Christians of Mahomet’s time, ‘by’ or ‘amongst them’ . . . It is therefore clear that the Sacred Scriptures, as possessed by the Jews and Christians generally in the 7th century were, according to the teaching of the Coran, authentic, genuine, and free from corruption. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 128).

Another writer likewise concludes that the Qur’an ‘seems to assume that the real Torah and the real Evangel were in the hands of contemporary Jews and Christians’ (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 122). In another place the Qur’an plainly says of the Jews that they ‘study the Scripture’ (Surah 2.44) and in the same Surah the Qur’an itself is said to be the Truth ‘confirming what is with them’ (Surah 2. 91). The only scripture which the Jews were studying, which was in their possession, and which the Qur’an here plainly professes to confirm, was the Old Testament just as we know it today. An even more striking text says to Muhammad:

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book before thee. Surah 10.94

Not only does this text yet again confirm that the Jews and the Christians of Muhammad’s time were indeed reading the true Scripture but it even commands Muhammad to consult them if he was in any doubt about what was coming to him in the Qur’an. If the original Torah and Gospel had been corrupted or replaced, would the Qur’an direct Muhammad to consult the readers of these Scriptures? There can be only one possible conclusion from a study of all the texts we have quoted. Even though Muhammad may have believed that the Torah and the Gospel were books revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively, by confirming that the Torah and the Gospel were the scriptures in the possession of their followers at that time and were duly read and studied by them, the Qur’an has given an unequivocal testimony to the Old and New Testaments as the genuine Word of God. This is the indisputable witness of the Qur’an to the Bible.

It is, in the circumstances, of no small interest to find that the Qur’an always speaks of the earlier books with respect – in such terms, indeed, as to leave the very definite impression that Muhammad, at any rate, believed in their divine origin and genuineness. (Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 3).

To sum up the evidence presented above, the Koran clearly implies the existence and currency of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in the time of the prophet of Islam. It attests their authenticity and inspired character. They are appealed to by the prophet and their observance inculcated. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 25).” (Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslims, Objections to the Integrity of the Bible, C. The Testimony of the Qur’an to the Bible, 1. The Qur’anic Witness to the Christian Bible: http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/7c.html; bold emphasis ours)

Williams is now faced with a major dilemma. Since his citation from Eaton equates the Scriptures with God’s unchanging words this means that the Holy Bible must be the incorruptible revelation which God inspired through the prophets and apostles. To argue otherwise is to believe that God’s incorruptible words were changed and lost over time, thereby falsifying the Quran’s repeated affirmation that God’s words can never be changed. There is simply no way around this, just as the following syllogism shows:

  1. God’s words are unchangeable.

  2. The Scriptures that God sent down are his words.

  3. Therefore, the Scriptures are unchangeable.

  4. The only Scriptures that the Jews and Christians have ever possessed are the books of the Old and New Testaments.

  5. Therefore, the Old and New Testament Scriptures must be the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God.

  6. If these are not the Scriptures which God sent down then this means God’s words have been changed and corrupted over time.

  7. Therefore, this proves that the Quran is in gross error when it says that none can change God’s words, since many have done exactly that, especially in respect the Scriptures which God has revealed.

However, if Williams were to accept the Holy Bible as the incorruptible Word of God, which he must do so if he is to remain consistent with the message of the Quran, then he can no longer remain a Muslim, since Muhammad’s so-called revelations contradict the core, essential doctrines of the Biblical books. Therefore, Williams must turn his back on Muhammad and either recommit his life to Jesus as his risen Lord and Savior, or he can choose to follow the path of Bart Ehrman and become a not quite so happy agnostic! These are the only two choices that Williams has if he is to be honest and consistent with the data that he has presented. Otherwise, he can continue to relish in his blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies since truth doesn’t matter to Williams.

The problems which Eaton’s quote raises for Williams are far from over. Time to proceed to the next part of our response.

Further Reading

How does Islam view the Bible? http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html

The Testimony of the Qur’an to the Bible http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/7c.html

The Textual History of the Qur’an and the Bible http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/texthistory.html

The incorruptibility of Allah’s words and the Charge of Biblical Corruption http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/word_incorruptible.html

God’s Words Can Never Be Changed http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable.html

The Words of God Are Unchangeable! [Part 1] http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable_r1.html, [Part 2] http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable_r2.html

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to A Dawagandist Proves that the Holy Bible is Incorruptible! A post by Sam Shamoun

  1. willjkinney says:

    Hi saints. There is something fundamentally wrong with this whole article and most Christians simply refuse to face it. It the huge white elephant standing in the middle of the room that most Christians pretend isn’t there.

    This article says: “There is simply no way around this, just as the following syllogism shows:
    God’s words are unchangeable.
    The Scriptures that God sent down are his words.
    Therefore, the Scriptures are unchangeable.
    The only Scriptures that the Jews and Christians have ever possessed are the books of the Old and New Testaments.
    Therefore, the Old and New Testament Scriptures must be the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God.
    If these are not the Scriptures which God sent down then this means God’s words have been changed and corrupted over time.
    Therefore, this proves that the Quran is in gross error when it says that none can change God’s words, since many have done exactly that, especially in respect the Scriptures which God has revealed.”

    Notice the use of the present tense “ARE” throughout. God’s words ARE unchangeable. The Scriptures that God sent down ARE his words. The Scriptures ARE unchangeable.

    The simple FACT is that most of you Christians do NOT really believe these statements and you have no unchangeable words of God you can show to anybody or believe in yourselves. What you have is an almost endless series of constantly changing and contradictory (both in texts and meanings) Bible Babble Buffet versions coming off the presses that none of you believe ARE “the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God.”

    The Quran is a lie but so is this false Christian confession of belief in this phantom, mystical, imaginary, make believe “the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God” Old and New Testaments you PROFESS to believe in.

    If you think I am wrong about this, then prove me a liar and SHOW us a copy of these infallible words of God you SAY you believe in? Will you do that for us? Anybody? Not gonna happen, is it.

    The polls themselves show that the majority of present day Christians do NOT believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language.

    “The Bible is not the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God”

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

  2. madmanna says:

    Hi Will,
    You are right to point this out.
    I think it is dishonouring to God to appeal to false scriptures sent by the devil to support the true scriptures. The Quran is from the enemy of Christ so we should reject it completely in my view.

  3. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Badmanna, your approach here condemns Paul and Jude. Read Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12, and Jude 1:14-15, where Paul and Jude quote pagan literature and 1 Enoch, which is a Pseudepigrapha. In fact, Paul’s statement in Acts 17:28, “as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring,” is from Aratus’s poem “Phainomena,” where the God being referred to was Zeus! You therefore have now accused Paul and Jude of dishonoring God!

    It is comments like yours that shows that the KJV only camp really haven’t thought out their arguments carefully because you end up condemning your own beliefs with the kind of absurd statement that you brothers tend to spew out.

  4. willjkinney says:

    Sam Shamoun says: “It is comments like yours that shows that the KJV only camp really haven’t thought out their arguments carefully because you end up condemning your own beliefs with the kind of absurd statement that you brothers tend to spew out.”

    Hi Sam. When are you finally going to get around to actually SHOW us a copy of these alluded to by you “God’s words ARE unchangeable. The Scriptures that God sent down ARE his words. The Scriptures ARE unchangeable.”?

    I repeat –

    The simple FACT is you do NOT really believe these statements and you have no unchangeable words of God you can show to anybody or believe in yourselves. What you have is an almost endless series of constantly changing and contradictory (both in texts and meanings) Bible Babble Buffet versions coming off the presses that none of you believe ARE “the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God.”

    And again –

    If you think I am wrong about this, then prove me a liar and SHOW us a copy of these infallible words of God you SAY you believe in? Will you do that for us? Anybody? Not gonna happen, is it, Sam.

  5. madmanna says:

    Brother Sam

    you said: “You therefore have now accused Paul and Jude of dishonoring God!”

    I reply, they are inspired writers of the NT, you are not.

    You seem to be putting the Koran on a par with the Bible where it appears to support the Bible. In effect you are adding pagan scriptures to the Holy Bible. I think this is wrong.

  6. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, to be quite honest your argument goes far bad to worse. Using your own logic here means that much of the NT is obsolete for us because they men who wrote them were inspired and we are not. Therefore, their message isn’t for us, and we cannot learn from their examples on how to evangelize and debate, since they are inspired and we are not.

    Moreover, if anything since they are inspired that should make it ALL THE MORE UNLIKELY FOR THEM TO QUOTE PAGAN SOURCES AND UNINSPIRED AUTHORITIES, and here is why. When an inspired writer cites a pagan source or an uninspired text THEN THAT BECOMES A PART OF THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES! Therefore, Acts 17:29, 1 Corinthians 15:33, Titus 1:12 and Jude 1:14-15 ARE NOW ALL PART OF THE INSPIRED RECORD, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE CITING PAGANS AND FALSE WRITINGS (Pseudepigrapha)!

    So you again just condemned the holy men of God for adding not just pagan scriptures to the Holy Bible, but also uninspired sources, in fact false writings, such as 1 Enoch. Really bad argument to be quite honest.

    In fact, to make it rather easy for you, can you please quote a text where Paul says to imitate or follow his example except in cases where he quotes pagan writings to prove and back up his inspired statements?

    Like I said, if you really want people to embrace your position concerning the KJV then you really need to avoid bad and outright irrational arguments.

  7. willjkinney says:

    Hi Sam. When are you finally going to get around to actually SHOW us a copy of these alluded to by you “God’s words ARE unchangeable. The Scriptures that God sent down ARE his words. The Scriptures ARE unchangeable.”?

    I repeat –

    The simple FACT is you do NOT really believe these statements and you have no unchangeable words of God you can show to anybody or believe in yourselves. What you have is an almost endless series of constantly changing and contradictory (both in texts and meanings) Bible Babble Buffet versions coming off the presses that none of you believe ARE “the unchangeable, incorruptible words of God.”

    And again –

    If you think I am wrong about this, then prove me a liar and SHOW us a copy of these infallible words of God you SAY you believe in? Will you do that for us? Anybody? Not gonna happen, is it, Sam.

  8. madmanna says:

    Hi Will,
    Sam can’t show us a copy. You’ll have to wait a while. He is still working on the 67th book which will consist of Islamic scriptures approved by him.

  9. Sam Shamoun says:

    Wow Badmanna, is this venom really coming out from you? You can’t respond to me so you resort to stupid silly personal attacks, like a good Muslim would? So what was that about working on the 67th book, badmanna ibn Muhammad?

    In fact, let me now treat you the way you deserve because you have now shown that you really have no class since you are a typical KJV cultist who sacrifices integrity and honesty for blind imitation of your idol Will.

    Can you tell me that the Greek manuscripts which were collated to form the Textus Receptus HAD VARIATIONS AMONG ONE ANOTHER? Let me break this down to your level so you can actually comprehend something for once in your life. ARE YOU SAYING THERE AR NO VARIATIONS AMONG THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WHICH WERE USED TO FORM YOUR TEXTUS RECEPTUS? Since you obviously are not that stupid to say yes, can you be so kind as to tell me how much variation exists among these manuscripts, and how do you decide which of the variants is the original one?

    And don’t hide behind your daddy’s skirt young man, since I am not directing my comments to your false prophet Will, but to you. Therefore, I will not respond to that brainwashed cultist but to you seeing that you are now acting like a good Muhammadan.

    Now show me how intelligent and honest you really are. After what you posted here I doubt you are either that bright or honest.

  10. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna,

    Just in case you try to make the stupid and dishonest move of denying that the manuscripts forming the Textus Receptus contained many variations, make sure to watch this clip which exposes this boldfaced lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lhwCegooHU&index=33&list=PLnqEVCQOftf21wk4_2cY_XPUwTCogYEef

    As Daniel Wallace noted, there are six to ten variant readings per chapter for even the closest two Greek Byzantine manuscripts in existence.

    Therefore, in light of the fact that NONE of these Greek manuscripts PERFECTLY agreed with each other, WHICH ONE OF THESE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS CAN YOU POINT TO AND CLAIM IT IS THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD, AND HOW DO YOU KNOW?

    Now don’t give me the stupid, copout response that the KJV is the perfect Word of God when the Greek manuscripts that underlie it were anything but perfect.

    So you see how stupid you and your idol Willy Nilly sound now with your venom and empty rhetoric?

    I am truly disappointed in you. I thought you weren’t another lowlife cultist who can only resort to mocking someone when he cannot refute him. For that, shame on you especially seeing how much I have contributed to your page and tried to work with you in order to build you up and support you.

  11. willjkinney says:

    Hi madmanna. Yes, I am very well aware of the fact that Sam Shamoun is just another very confused and dishonest Bible agnostic who piously talks about the inerrant and unchangeable Scriptures, yet the poor man has NO inerrant Bible that he actually believes in and will NEVER show us one, unless of course he eventually finishes writing his own inerrant Bible.

    And of course he brings up his equally confused and self contradictory hero, Dan Wallace. Yes, I know all about Dan Wallace. He is another professional liar who SAYS “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.” but like grasshopper Sam, who has learned well from his Master, he will NEVER get around to showing us a copy of this infallible Bible he professes (and lies about) to believe in.

    Dan Wallace is Messing with The Book

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm

  12. willjkinney says:

    John MacArthur Plans Biblical Inerrancy Summit

    John MacArthur, along with several other influential Christian leaders, is soon going to host what they call a Biblical Conference on Inerrancy. With great fanfare (and pious sounding hypocrisy) they announce: “We have a dynamic line-up, including today’s preeminent defenders of truth: Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Carl Trueman, Iain Murray, Ian Hamilton, Derek Thomas, Miguel Nunez, Steve Lawson, RC Sproul, Mark Dever, Paige Patterson, Steven Nichols and Kevin DeYoung. These are leaders who are willing to stand up for the integrity of Scripture without compromise.”

    Mr. MacArthur states: “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, released in 1978, set the standard for inerrancy. Since that document was produced 36 years ago, a new generation has arrived that needs to be brought in line with the truth. Current publications demonstrate that the true doctrine of inerrancy is under attack. Some of these attacks are subtle while others are more blatant, but anything that undermines the absolute inerrancy of Scripture destroys the foundation of all Christian truth. Trusting the Bible is everything. Next year’s Summit will address this crucial issue, and give it the attention it deserves.

    In every generation, pastors and teachers are accountable to God for defending the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Trusting God’s Word is directly connected to trusting His person. Trusting His Word is also the necessary conviction of every Bible expositor. Preaching biblical exposition and believing in inerrancy are inseparable. Next year’s Summit is intended to act as a beacon for the benefit of the church where we intend to expose the fallacies, silence the critics, and reaffirm the trustworthiness of Scripture.”

    Having John MacArthur give a lecture on the Inerrancy of the Bible is like having Hugh Hefner give a talk extolling the virtues of celibacy.

    See John MacArthur – Confused and Self-Contradictory Pastor with No Infallible Bible

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/johnmacarthur.htm

  13. Sam Shamoun says:

    You see badmanna, how the leader of your cult group came running to reply in order to get attention? However, he can kindly consider himself blocked since I will not deal with this attention-obsessed cultist and will therefore wait for YOUR ANSWERS. Like I said, make sure not to hide behind your idol Will like a good Muhammadan.

  14. madmanna says:

    Sam, don’t you think you are overreacting? Can anyone criticize you without being accused of malice? Have you got no sense of humour?

  15. willjkinney says:

    The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing

    Do you believe “the Bible” IS the inspired and 100% true and inerrant words of God or not?

    The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

    You can see and read here for yourself this modern day Evangelical confession of faith in what they call the Scriptures.

    http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

    This was the statement that launched the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational joint effort by hundreds of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of Scripture.

    The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J.I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John Wenham.

    As you will soon see, this “bold” confession of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture is nothing more than a pious sounding bunch of mumbo jumbo that ends up meaning absolutely nothing of any value to anyone. Notice their repeated use of present tense verbs in such phrases as “the Holy Scriptures ARE the supreme written norm”, “the Scripture IS true and reliable in all the matters it ADDRESSES.” and “Scripture in its entirety IS inerrant, BEING free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”

    This all sounds very good and orthodox. I like it. So, WHERE IS this inerrant and infallible Scripture they keep telling us about? Oh, wait. Now they tell us in Article X. Here it is: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, APPLIES ONLY TO THE AUTOGRAPHIC TEXT of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

    Now, this “statement on inerrancy” is absurd on several levels. First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that “translations are the Word of God (it should be “word” of God, not the “Word” (Jesus Christ) of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original”, when they HAVE no original to compare any translation to.

    They are professing a faith in something they KNOW does not exist and they have never seen. Now, that is pretty silly, isn’t it. They don’t have a complete, inspired and infallible Bible to show or give to anyone. Try a little honesty, folks. Don’t try to pass off pious sounding double speek as gospel truth.

    A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in. Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.”

    Notice one particular requirement they list for us that defines this non-existent, hypothetical, philosophical, mystical and not yet in print “Inerrant Scripture” they keep wanting us to think they believe in. It’s found in Article XII – “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.”

    Well, as a King James Bible believer (with a real Bible to give to anyone who wants to read it for himself) I agree that the true and infallible words of God must also be 100% historically true. IF it is not, then we should ask at what point and when does God start to tell us the truth about all those other things found in His Book?

    So, let’s take the following few examples and ask our “originals only” brethren to tell us what their “inerrant Bible” actually says in these following places. I have basically limited this list to different historical events regarding the names of the people or the numbers of the things or people involved in these historical events.

    The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.

    Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)

    whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times – KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

    or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    Look at the new “revision” of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1.

    1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or “was 40 years old…and when he had reigned 2 years” (Amplified bible 1987) or “____years old and reigned 2 years” (C…omplete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or “was 30 years old…ruled for 42 years” (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even “was 50 years old and reigned 22 years.”!

    But wait. There’s even more. The ESV 2001 edition had “Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel.” But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel…”. Think about it. “Saul lived for one year and then became king”. They just get loopier and loopier, don’t they?

    By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

    2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read “males from THREE years old” (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “males from THIRTY years old” (NASB – ft. Hebrew “three”, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem)
    or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem).

    If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF “the Bible” is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

    So, try to honestly answer the basic question here. Do you or do you not believe there IS (or ever was) a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language that IS the inerrant and infallible words of God? Are you a Bible believer or a Bible “agnostic” who doesn’t know if such a Bible exists or not and what it might look like if it did?

    Here are the documented FACTS about where present day Christianity stands in its apostate beliefs about the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible. Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inspired and infallible word of God.
    This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examination, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person’s particular version differs from all the others.

    As one liberal theologian pointed out in his review of Harold Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible, the only real difference between the conservative and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say the Bible USED TO BE inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it NEVER WAS inspired or inerrant. BOTH positions agree that the Bible IS NOT NOW inspired or inerrant.

    As brother Daryl Coats so aptly says in his article The Two Lies: “If the Bible was inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one in the entire history of the world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the “divine originals.” Nor, has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of “inspired originals”, because the originals were distributed among more than a dozen individuals and local churches.”

    God said: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.” Amos 8:11

    The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 “Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

    The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST…” 2 Thessalonians 2:3

    The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a “hold it in your hands and read” type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

    The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

    “MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies” (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

    “WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world … compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life” (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

    The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, “The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book.” Griesbach’s outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

    As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was “more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.” Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.”

    H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. “In general,” he says, “the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis.”

    Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. “The primary goal of New Testament textual study,” he tells us, “remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible.” Grant also says: “It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered.”

    “…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon Epp, “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

    “As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament–or even a text as close as possible to that original–was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM ‘ORIGINAL’ HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

    In his well written article, The Two Lies, ( http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/coats-twolies.html ) Bible believer Daryl R. Coats says: “If the Bible were inspired only in the original manuscripts, no one today really knows for sure what is in “the Bible” because no one today has ever seen the original manuscripts. Not surprisingly, this is the attitude behind every English “bible” published since 1611. “We can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text,” says the preface to the RSV, too deceitful to define just what a “competent scholar” is and to cut through the double-talk and admit, “This is what we think the Bible might be.” “Scholarly uncertainty” is more clearly evident in the third edition of the UBS “Greek New Testament,” the introduction to which states, “The letter A [next to a passage] signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading [note: "the superior reading" is not the same as "the correct reading"!], while D shows there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.” Apparently the scholars change their mind from year to year as to which “readings” are genuine; how else do we explain the “more than five hundred changes” between the second and third editions of the UBS “Greek New Testament”?

    George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

    Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, “The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy.”

    Pastor Michael Youseff’s Message on His “Leading The Way” program. The title of todays message was “The Bible, The World’s Most Relevant Book – Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

    85% of students at America’s largest Evangelical Seminary don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

    74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

    What Christians really believe

    A book by George A. Marsden, “Reforming Fundamentalism” quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students “do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.”

    This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters:

    95% of Episcopalians,

    87% of Methodists,

    82% of Presbyterians,

    77% of American Lutherans, and

    67% of American Baptists said “No.”

    The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is “totally accurate in all its teachings”; 45% believe that the Bible is “absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally.”

    “Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches.”

    “Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 – 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP.”

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

    Will Kinney

  16. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, that didn’t come off as a joke, especially when you see that Will and I don’t get along and yet you go ahead and take a shot against me. I have no problem with people joking with me, if that is what they intended.

  17. willjkinney says:

    Sam, when are you going to show us a copy of this inerrant and unchangeable Scriptures you PROFESS to believe in? Not gonna happen, is it?

  18. Sam Shamoun says:

    BTW badmanna, remember what Proverbs 18:13 and 17 exhort us to do when deciding over a matter of central importance:

    “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him… He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

    Therefore, since you are not a blind zealot like KJV cultist Will Kinney is I am sure you will benefit from reading the materials found on this site which directly responds to all the falsehoods promoted by cultists like Kinney. Enjoy! http://www.kjvonly.org/

    P.S.
    As you can see I am using the AV for my articles since I absolutely love it and believe it is God’s Word, and therefore I am not AGAINST anyone who believes it is the only true Word of God. My problem is with those with a cultish mentality that resort to pathetic, dishonest, inconsistent arguments and personal attacks in order to prove that the KJV is the only true Word of God.

  19. willjkinney says:

    Hi Sam Shamoun. You posted “As you can see I am using the AV for my articles since I absolutely love it and believe it is God’s Word, and therefore I am not AGAINST anyone who believes it is the only true Word of God. My problem is with those with a cultish mentality that resort to pathetic, dishonest, inconsistent arguments and personal attacks in order to prove that the KJV is the only true Word of God.”

    Sam, since you are a dishonest bible agnostic, I suppose it is hard for you to see how you continually contradict yourself and even lie. You tell us here you believe the KJB is Gods word. You even tell us that you are not AGAINST anyone who believes it is the ONLY true word of God. Well, sir, that is my position. We probably even share a lot of the same theological beliefs.

    Why then do you accuse me of being pathetic, dishonest, inconsistent and engages in personal attacks in order to prove the KJB is the only true word of God?

    The only names I have called you are “bible agnostic” and unbeliever in the inerrancy of the Bible”. Why do I do this. Because you don’t REALLY believe what you just told us. You are lying again. It is YOU who took James White’s arguments and brought them up AGAINST the King James Bible, Remember? YOU are the one who said the KJB was wrong for having the word “Godhead” in Colossians 2:9. (You got this from James White), and it is YOU who brought up John 14:14, again, from James White.

    Then you come back at me and called me nasty and evil, and “cultish” and even start to question my salvation.

    Sir, think it through. Be consistent. Don’t lie about it. IF you really believe the King James Bible is the only complete, inspired, inerrant, infallible and 100% true words of God, then the Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. and the corrupt NKJV too, CANNOT equally be the same complete and inerrant words of God.

    Why? because they differ both TEXTUALLY and in meaning in literally hundreds and hundreds of places. You have to take a stand. Not all of them can be God’s inerrant words. Are you willing to take that stand or are you going to lie, deceive and attempt to portray yourself as a believer in an inerrant and unchangeable Scripture, but you are not able to tell us exactly which Book this is you say you believe in?

    That is what James White does. That is what Dan Wallace does, and that is what John MacArthur does. They all SAY “I believe the Bible is the infallible words of God.” But when you ask these men to SHOW us a copy of this infallible Bible they all PROFESS (and lie about) to believe in, not one of them will do it. How about you, sir. What are you going to do?

  20. willjkinney says:

    By the way, if you want to see James White’s criticism of “Godhead” in Colossians 2:9, and see just how totally wrong the man is, Go here -

    Godhead or Deity – Is James White Right?

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/godheaddeityschoolmast.htm

  21. madmanna says:

    @ Sam

    If there are pagan sayings in the Bible it means that these sayings were inspired to be included in THE scriptures. That does not give anyone the right to go trawling in the writings of the heathen for anything that they think can be used to “support” the Bible. We can not follow the apostles in all that they did. Some of it was unique to them and unrepeatable. The canon of scripture is closed.

    Thanks for the link Sam ( http://www.kjvonly.org/ ). The first thing you see here is 2 Tim 3 v 16:

    16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    The problem is right there staring at everyone in the face. What is this scripture? Does it exist? If so where can it be found? This web site does not give you an answer to this question. It just claims to know where this scripture is NOT found, namely in the KJV.

    This is an example of their arguments:

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.[5]

    Given the doctrinal stability of the manuscripts, the variants present only a minor problem for most serious students. However, for King James Only advocates, who believe that God must have preserved his Word in absolutely perfect form if he were to preserve it at all, the variants present an obstacle that cannot be overcome.

    False Presuppositions

    King James Only defenders have two false presuppositions behind their belief that there must exist an absolutely perfect copy of the Bible upon the earth. They assert (1) that God has promised a perfect transmission of the Bible and (2) that a copy of the Bible with any blemishes cannot be trusted at all. Quotations from Mickey Carter and Lloyd Streeter espouse the first assertion:

    Those saying no one has a perfect Bible are really saying that God left us without His preserved Word. The only group claiming to have the perfect Word of God is the King James Version believers. God has not given us the Bible, unless we have it in the King James Version. The other versions are different, and things that are different are not the same. If they are not the same, one is right and the others are wrong; or all are wrong, and God failed to keep His promise.[6]

    God gave promise concerning His Word that He would preserve it perfectly.[7]

    There is no promise to preserve Scripture in which God has defined the exact form or location of such preservation. He has not guaranteed that copies precise in every detail would always exist upon earth. King James Only advocates have dictated how God must fulfill his promise, not the Bible itself. The Bible does not identify one particular manuscript, version, or translation as the one and only perfect Bible. Anyone who chooses to call the KJV the one and only perfect Bible does so without any instructions from the Bible itself about how to make his decision.

    The second false presupposition behind the belief that God must always preserve a perfect copy of his Word upon the earth, namely that a copy of the Bible is of no value unless it is perfect in every detail, is reflected in the words of Streeter:

    If there are errors in the Bible then you can not trust anything that it says because you will not know what is error and what is truth, (Streeter, p. 259).

    Here Streeter sets up a straw man. His opponents are not claiming that errors exist in the Bible as originally given, but only in the subsequent copies. It is a favorite ploy of those who believe in a perfect KJV to accuse all who disagree with them of believing that there are errors in the Bible, instead of errors in the copies. In fairness they should accurately state that their opponents believe that the biblical writers made no errors and that God has preserved his Word such that it is sufficient for all practical matters of doctrine and life. The blemishes contained in extant copies do not overthrow the Bible’s fundamental trustworthiness. How can believers know that the Bible is trustworthy if errors have occurred in transmission? They can know it by faith, and a faith which is consistent with the observable facts. There is no need to play word games to make preservation into something that it plainly is not. History does not need to be falsified in defense of an indefensible theory.

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    ” His opponents are not claiming that errors exist in the Bible as originally given, but only in the subsequent copies.”

    So presumably all is well because there were no errors in the original manuscripts !!!!!!!!!!

    Wherever God’s inspired scripture has alterations, omissions or additions this is the devil’s scripture. These people are happy that the devil’s scripture and God’s scripture are on the same page in the same book woven together like one piece of cloth !!!!!

    I don’t believe that God has allowed this situation. Therefore I agree with Will Kinney and other KJV onlyists.

    Psalm 12 6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    8The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

    John 17 v17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

    Psalm 119 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

    John 10 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

  22. willjkinney says:

    Hi all. This is why Sam Shamoun is such a hypocrite and a liar. He SAYS he is not against those who believe that only the KJB is the true word of God, and then he give us a link with tons of articles by his fellow Bible agnostics who attack and criticize the KJB telling us that it has all kinds of errors, both textual and translational. You are a hypocrite, Sam.

    Yet Sam and those like him on that list of bible agnostic writers, will glowingly talk about “the preserved, inerrant and unchangeable Scriptures”, and yet not one of them will EVER tell you where to get a copy of them.

    Madmanna is right in what he says here:
    16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    The problem is right there staring at everyone in the face. What is this scripture? Does it exist? If so where can it be found? This web site does not give you an answer to this question. It just claims to know where this scripture is NOT found, namely in the KJV.

    This is an example of their arguments:

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Now, let’s look at this statement here –
    “In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.[5]”

    Double speak Baloney. Here is what your bible agnostic side is saying-

    The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, “The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book.” Griesbach’s outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

    As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was “more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.” Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.”

    H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. “In general,” he says, “the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis.”

    Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. “The primary goal of New Testament textual study,” he tells us, “remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible.” Grant also says: “It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered.”

    “…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon Epp, “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

    “As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament–or even a text as close as possible to that original–was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM ‘ORIGINAL’ HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

  23. willjkinney says:

    One of the big name authors on that anti-KJB site Sam Shamoun posted is Doug Kutilek. Let’s take a look at how sound these bible agnostics’ arguments are. Mr. Kutilek has one particular “error” he has focused on that he thinks he has found in the King James Bible.

    Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”

    He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”

    OK, are you willing to take a closer look at this “most serious of defects” this bible corrector thinks he has stumbled on? Is he right, or is he completely wrong?

    “The Spirit ITSELF bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Romans 8:16

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/thespirititself.htm

    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

    “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. 14:38

  24. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, I just saw your comments and your are doing nothing more than arguing in a circle over and over again. So unless you have something else to say to advance the discussion, instead of repeating the same circular argument over and over again, I end it here since my points remain untouched and nothing that either you or KJV cultist Kinney have stated even begins to remotely refute them.

    Lord bless.
    Sam

  25. willjkinney says:

    Say, Sam, So when are you going to finally get around to SHOWING us a copy of this “infallible and unchanging Scriptures” you keep telling us all that you believe in? Is that going to happen, or are you just going to continue to lie and attempt to deceive us in thinking you actually believe such a thing exists? (Rhetorical question)

  26. madmanna says:

    Alright Sam. No problem.

    I was trying to find the biblical answer and to argue from scripture. Obviously my arguments are not convincing to you.

    The Lord bless and keep you and yours.

  27. Pingback: Another Dawagandist Testifies to the Incorruptibility of the Holy Bible! A post by Sam Shamoun | Badmanna's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s