Monday, November 21, 2011

Jay Smith's "Worlds Apart" Series

















search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar
In response to the lies and propaganda you posted on the video of the crazy Mother who loves to watch her sons die for your evil Allah.

I completely reject your fallacious propaganda and scenario. Oppressed implies that the Jews are not allowing the Muslim people (No such thing as a Palestinian, just Jordanian refugees and others from Muslim cuntries) to not have the right to pursue what is rightfully theirs. It is the Muslim people that are oppressing the Israelis by not allowing them to pursue life, liberty ad happiness. The Muslim refugees have had many offers to accept land but will not cioncede untill all the Jews are wiped from the Planet!
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
And it seems your false Prophet contradicted himself many times when he killed children, old and bunrt down trees. How can this be?
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: “They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)
And it is ok to kill non Muslim children.
thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)
I think this would be considered deceit!
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." (Bukhari 59:369)
An old woman? Wow thats surprsing. NOT!
She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter [and another] were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly by putting a rope between her legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two). (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 980)
The Prophet recited Suratan-Najm (103) at Mecca and prostrated while reciting it and those who were with him did the same except an old man who took a handful of small stones or earth and lifted it to his forehead and said, "This is sufficient for me." Later on, I saw him killed as a non-believer. (Bukhari 19:173)
Now for the trees myth that Muslims so love to spew!
Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4326:
'Abdullah b. Umar reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) burnt the date-palms of Banu Nadir. And we have proven that Islam permits rape of catpives countless times. Isnt it amazing that everything a Muslim claims of Mohamed and Islam, it is most likely the exact opposite? What Islam are you practicing? Not Mohameds. Thats clear!

simple_truth said...

I just missed an opportunity to meet Jay about 2 weeks ago. Well, I guess watching these videos will have to be the next best thing. I am happy to see these vids posted here. Thanks, David for posting them.

WhatsUpDoc said...

Nice collection very interesting.

Usama said...

I love Jay Smith, but he made a "mistake" in the second video.

He said Muslims don't say "praise be unto him" when referring to Allah or Jesus, and do with Muhammad in the context of pronouncing their names. In my opinion, he was a bit vague, but unfortunately he isn't here, so I'll address what I can.

Muslims say "alayhi Salam" after every prophet, except Muhammad who they say either "Salallahu alayhi wasallam" or "alayhi salat was salam" neither of these mean "praise be unto him", but 'peace upon them' Muhammad's is a modification of that saying 'peace and prayers upon him' because Allah specifies it in the Qur'an 33:56.

Now, with Allah Muslims say "Azza wa jall" The Most Glorious" or "Sabhanu wa tala" "the most High and esteemed". These are not praise be to God either.

However, Muslims do say "praise be to God' but not in the context of pronouncing names. "Subhanullah" means "Glory be to God" and "alhamdulilah" means 'praise be to God'.

I don't know what Jay was insisting here, if it was an error of the tongue, ignorance, or maybe he was referencing something different. He obviously isn't here to clarify these comments, maybe others can speculate...

But ultimately only he and God know.

"God knows, and you do not know." (Qur'an 2:216)

Kim said...

This man cant win debates so he gets his information from ignorant websites and makes a show. I found it humourous from start to end especially when he mentioned that Allah and Hubal are related....LOL!!!!

The ignorance of this man is outstanding.

Sam said...

Jay Smith made a lot of basic mistakes which I would like to mention with the hopes that he will read these comments and learn from them. I also want to share them with others here so that they don't end up making the same mistakes. It is unfortunate that we are imperfect creatures who can't help but to make errors. Hopefully, we all learn from them and correct ourselves. With that said I will post the errors that I caught so far.

Sam said...

Here are some errors I found from part. 4. Smith said that Q. 3:55 uses muwatifika to refer to Allah killing Jesus. This is wrong. The word is mutawaffeeka, and it doesn't mean "I will kill you," but "I will cause you to die."

Smith also says that God didn't reckon Ishmael as a son of Abraham. However, since Christians believe that the Torah is God's inspired Word, this means what the writer says is what God says (unless the context suggests otherwise). Therefore, what does he then do with all the references where Ishmael is called Abraham's son? See the following verses as proof: Gen. 16:15-16; 17:23-26; 25:8-9, 12; 1 Chron. 1:28.

He says that a prophet must come from the prophetic race, i.e. Israel. Where explicitly does the Bible say this? In fact, what does he do with all the NT verses which mention prophets that Christ sent after his ascension, which would have included Gentile prophets as well? See, for instance, the following verses: Matt. 23:34; Acts 11:27-29; 13:1-4; 15:32; 21:8-11; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11-16.

Sam said...

Smith in pt. 5 refers to the Rodman version of the Quran, when it should have been Rodwell.

In pt. 9 he refers to Q. 19:16-21 and says that Gabriel came to Mary, which is another a mistake. In fact, the name Gabriel doesn't appear anywhere in that particular text. Instead, it says that the Spirit (ruh) appeared to her, which later Muslim expositors took to be Gabriel, albeit mistakenly. He also erroneously claimed that Nestorians believed that Mary was part of any Godhead, which is not the case.

Sam said...

In pt. 10 Smith says that the Quran in 50:16 claims that the ruh (Spirit) is closer to man than his own jugular vein. However, there is no referenc to the ruh or Spirit in that verse. Here is what it actually says: We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein (Pickthall).

This is it for now. Lord willing, if I find any more mistakes I will pass them on.

Sam said...

Some errors from pt. 6. The name is Dean Burgon, not Jean. Secondly, the assertion that the entire NT can be restored from the quotations found in the Church fathers' writings of the first 300 years with the exception of 11 verses is an outdated statement that has been proven to be a lie by the team from Islamic Awareness:

As Smith himself says here at the start of the show, we need to be careful what we claim as Christians.

Continued in the next comment.

Sam said...

Continued from the previous comment. The Islamic Awareness article has a footnote which deals specifically with Smith and his claim:

[53] For example see here, here, here, here and here. None, however, can quite match the theatrical flair of the Christian missionary Jay Smith, the European Leadership Forums’ “expert” on Islam, who has recently established a ‘Youtube’ evangelical outreach to Muslims. In a video clip titled ‘Is The Bible Corrupted?’ Smith affirms the best piece of evidence to prove the integrity of the New Testament text is the anecdote of Sir David Dalrymple, where, according to Smith, one can prove the entire text of the twenty seven book New Testament prior to the 4th century, with the exception of “eleven insignificant verses”.

Since this article was first published on Nov. 2, 2006, this means that Smith's argument had already been criticized and refuted for at least 5 years before these shows. Smith needs to start reading the responses to his material.

Finally, Smith refers to Q. 4:136; 4:136; 10:94; 21:7; 29:46, none of which were cited completely accurately, which unfortunately will give Muslims a weapon to use against him to discredit his claims.

Baron Eddie said...

"God knows, and you do not know." (Qur'an 2:216)

That is referring to Muslims ...

Foolster41 said...

"This man cant win debates so he gets his information from ignorant websites and makes a show."

Wow, Kim. Throwing stones around inside glass houses while shouting about how black pots are seems like an unsafe hobby.

The Purple Marquise said...

More Mistakes:

Jay said in Part 3 that Ali was Muhammed's adopted son. He was not! He was his cousin and son-in law. And then he said that Ali was killed in the battle of Seffin. But he is wrong.

Ali was killed in the mosque of Kufa by a man called Abd-al-Rahman-Ibn Muljam.

Ibn Muljam was one of the Khawarij, or Kharijites who had rejected the authority and caliphate of Ali and were defeated and suppressed in the battle of Nahrawan by Ali who asserted his authority on them brutally. Many of them got killed in a horrendous fashion.

So Ibn Muljam killed Ali-ibn-Abi-Taleb as a revenge for the blood of his fallen comrades in the battle of Nahrawan. The Battle of Nahrawan and the Death of Ali both happened after the battle of Seffin.

Baron Eddie said...

You are right Sam

In An-Nisa (The Women) 19:17

فَاتَّخَذَتْ مِنْ دُونِهِمْ حِجَابًا فَأَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهَا رُوحَنَا فَتَمَثَّلَ لَهَا بَشَرًا سَوِيًّا

and kept herself in seclusion from them, whereupon We sent unto her Our angel of revelation, who appeared to her in the shape of a well-made human being. (17)

It says "our spirit" "رُوحَنَا"
and not our angel!

It says "our spirit" just like it is the trinity talking! ...

thanks David for these new (for me) videos

+ + +

Ken said...

I have not listened or watched all of them yet; but the last one on Muhammad and refuting the claims that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible was very good.

Except he says Muhammad means "glorious one" - it means "praised one".
from hmd حمد = praise
محمد = Muhammad, "the praised one"
احمد = Ahmad, also derived from "Hmd"

In part 3, the rise of Islam, he made some mistakes, but I agree with the overall truth of what he says, that Islam spread by the sword and Christianity spread under persecution in the first 3 + centuries.

1. Ali did not die in the battle of Siffin, but they did have that battle with Muawiyya around 657 AD.
Ali was killed later, while worshipping and praying in Kufa, in 660 by a Khawrijite, who are considered "outside" of orthodox Islam, and were upset with both sides of the Ali vs. Muawiyya fighting.

2. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. This is a common error that needs to be corrected. Constantine did make Christianity legal and no longer persecuted, yes. (312-313 AD) But it was Theodosius in 380 AD that made Christianity the State religion.

3. Paul Frigossi's book (Jihad, 1998, Prometheus) needs footnotes and updating, in order to back up what he writes. He needs to footnote from Ibn Ishaq (Ibn Hisham, the Haddith, the Qur'an, the Tarikh, etc.) Most of it seems true, of what I have read (have only read the first 10 short chapters, to page 82, and skipped around after that), but there is no way to confirm what he writes, as there are no footnotes.

Baron Eddie said...

In part 3 Jay Smith talking about Islamic invasion comparing to the Crusade ...

In Iraq they are teaching us about the "Islamic opening"
"الفتوحات الاسلامية"! ...

Muslims don't consider it invasion!

I am not surprised about not a lot of books published ...

I give you an example

Google search engine/translate, it is run by muslims!

If I want to translate words it will give me only Islamic definitions and does not give Arabic Christian definitions!

The translate service used to have a box where you can contribute to different meaning and I did that but there was no change and later the box disappeared!

In the West they are so trusting to whom they give responsibility to ...

They don't realize that some have other agendas and purposes and no honesty ...

Wake up "West" and smell the Humos

May God make their efforts to nothing ...

Ken said...

Also, in part 4, the four verses that Jay cites, and are shown on the screen; that he will address later regarding the nature of Jesus -

I think Jay means to say:

Surah 5:72 (needs to go from verse 72-75)
Surah 5:116 ( not 150; maybe he meant 115, which maybe 116 in other English Qur'an translations)

Surah 6:101 - correct

4:171 - not 7:171

Usama said...

Even the most learned person can make mistakes.

Sam said...

Here are more problems with pt. 10. Smith's appeal to the Hebrew words were somewhat confusing and muddled. Eloi isn't really the singular for God, but El is. He claims that Eloha is the dual (did he mean Eloah) which isn't supported by the Hebrew lexicons that I am aware of.

Moreover, his argument that Elohim refers to 3 or more is a major problem since Genesis 1:2 refers to the Spirit of God, which in Hebrew is Ruach Elohim, meaning that the word Elohim doesn't include God's Spirit in this verse.

In light of this fact, how can Elohim refer to three or more when Genesis 1:2 distinguishes and differentiates the Spirit from Elohim, which leaves us with only two Divine Persons of the Godhead?

Sam said...

The other major problem with pt. 10 is Smith's assertion that God the Father has never been seen since he is too holy to have face to face communication with man. He then argued that it was God the Son who appeared to men face to face throughout the OT.

This creates huge problems for our belief in the essential equality of the Divine Persons of the Godhead. Smith's statements implies that the Father is holier than the Son since the Son is not so holy that he cannot interact with sinners on earth. It further implies that the Son is more loving and compassionate than the Father since he is humble enough to appear to man in order to interact with him directly, whereas the Father is too exalted to ever do such a thing.

The final problem which Smith faces is that the passage he appeals to to make his case backfires against him. He claims that it was the Father in Exodus 33:20 who said to Moses that no one can see his face (not face to face as Smith kept repeating). The problem with this claim is that this is the very same God whom the chapter says Moses spoke face to face (cf. Exodus 33:7-11). There is absolutely no indication in the chapter that the LORD whom Moses saw was different from the LORD who later tells Moses that he cannot see his face.

Therefore, per Smith's interpretation of Exodus 33:20, this means it was the Father who spoke face to face with Moses, thereby refuting Smith.

Baron Eddie said...

I bet Jay Smith did not know this

Animals that say Allah! ...

These videos done by Muslims ...

I give my humble search to all

cat say Allah

Fish says Allah

lion saying Allah

crow saying Allah

Parrot saying ALLAH

5minutes old baby saying allah

Parrot recites Surah Ikhlas

Peacock Cries Allah

animal speek in allah

another lion saying allah

SubhanAllah ...

I personally thought that the cat tried to get a way ...

Is it not the crow is on the black list for Mohammed?

minoria said...

About the Islamic awareness article about the 30,000 citations from the Christian writers of the first 300 years and that they are from the NT not being true,I have to disagree.

MICHAEL LICONA certainly affirms it,and he is a serious scholar,he certainly would have verified the issue.So I trust him more than Islamic awareness,who I dont think are accurate.It is THEIR OWN article,not a scholarly article from NT scholars that they are showing.

Dk said...

Finished watching part 14.

One of the most peculiar defenses of biblical genocide I ever heard. First it was stated all the violent laws were to "protect his children Israel". Clearly however, if God is omniscient and knows that humans are evil, and are going to do evil, then the laws he created like "stone rebellious children" are not protecting them, but they will INEVITABLY be put to death considering their nature and the strict and harsh punishments, far from protecting his children he is securing their fate.

Then he compared God and Israel like the Bible does to "Father/Children", and talked about the various strictness and laws for different aged and maturity of children, but offered no particular reason why Israelite in Jesus time were ready for more peaceful laws and less violent laws. where as the ancient ones needed harsh violence? Was there a substantial change in nature? Does God change or not? He also shouldn't use this illustration as it implies Israel was younger and needed more protection before Jesus and had GROWN by the time of Jesus, but if that was the case why does the NT curse Jews and criticize Israelite for blindness. Clearly the situation hasn't changed that much both time periods of Israelite still only had "remnants" of the elect but large amounts of blindness. Ultimately therefore his depiction makes no sense, it wasn't the people that changed, but GOD's way of handling them that was altered. So actually "God does change". You could say they were in slavery again under roman occupation, but God just like under Egyptian slavery could have set them free, but choose to leave them in slavery and adopt a more zen like philosophy.

He made no attempt to even use DCT. And in comparing Islam to OT, he said "God doesn't regresses, he progresses", which already implies that the OT is backward like Islam, and the NT is better, which is impossible for a perfect God. As for God revealing stuff in "baby steps" that's not a good explanation as Israel never grew up, it was always blind in a large part.

My only criticism of his NT paradigm is that it was a rush-job and clearly he could have addressed more passages and also explained why the Christians in the 4th century plus ALLOWED the state to adopt Christianity, when the NT was so against church and state together (at least according to Jay's understanding of one passage which he doesn't really corroborate)

Is this going to convince a Muslim that the NT is completely peaceful? I doubt it. I've seen David do better.

Is this going to convince a Muslim that OT atrocities are acceptable and commanded by God? I doubt it. Unless Christians start saying Islamic DCT is just as legit as OT DCT, Muslims won't budge.

Jay should argue like David and Anthony that God simply can do anything the hell he wants because he's God, he is the master we are the slave, he is the potter we are the clay. David says "this is okay because we have evidence that outweighs the problems".

I like the more brutal honesty from David and his bloggers better than Jay who really provides no sound reason for Muslims to reject the Qur'an when the OT also has so much violence.

Violence and genocide can simply never be a factor in rejecting or accepting one God over another. If God says kill, and God is benevolent, then any command he gives is a justice or a mercy.

Sam said...

Minoria, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace says that the Islamic Awareness team is correct. In fact, in an email he actually praised the article, indicating that this paper actually caused him to revise his views. So if the greatest Evangelical Greek NT textual scholar praises this piece then my money is on him.

John 8:24 said...

Kim said: "This man cant win debates..."

According to you (and like-minded Muslims) no Christian can ever win a debate against a Muslim. All a Muslim debater needs to do is say that his opponent is lying! No evidence is necessary and you, as usual, win!!!

Jay Smith might not be the best of Christian debaters but he is perhaps the most courageous one - standing up to your uncultured Muslim thugs at the Speakers Corner every Sunday! When he started going to the Speakers Corner in the 1990s Muslims pushed, punched, and cursed him, and yanked his beard. He and his family received many death threats. He was attacked, was knocked down unconscious and kicked around by over 60 Muslims in broad daylight at the Speakers Corner. Muslims also tried to kill him and assaulted him with a knife. In spite of such vicious attacks, Jay never gave up. Now for more than 16 years he gets up the ladder at the Speakers Corner and defends Christian faith. He forgave those who attacked him and never attacked back or treated Muslims the way they treated him. I had a privilege to meet him a few times and he is full of love for Muslims! And that is real greatness!!!!

Now, Kim, show me one Muslim example like Jay.

(And by the way, Jay Smith won numerous debates at the Speakers Corner. Muslims can't stand him and that is why they resort to physical attacks.)

Ken said...

Can you give us a reference for Licona's point?

Are you saying that Licona affirms that all of the 27 NT books can be re-constructed from the Early Church Fathers except for 11 verses?

Another important point to know is when the person cuts off the range of "the early church fathers".

to Irenaeus and Tertullian (220 AD) ?

to Origen and Cyprian ( 255 AD) ?

To Eusebius(325 AD ?), Athanasius (died 373), Augustine, Jerome (400-430 AD ?)

Is there a response to the "Islam Awareness" article?

John 8:24 said...

Article on Jay Smith (there are 5 pages & you need to click through the link at the bottom):

John 8:24 said...

minoria said...

Hello Ken:

You asked:

Can you give us a reference for Licona's point?

Are you saying that Licona affirms that all of the 27 NT books can be re-constructed from the Early Church Fathers except for 11 verses?

Another important point to know is when the person cuts off the range of "the early church fathers".

to Irenaeus and Tertullian (220 AD) ?

to Origen and Cyprian ( 255 AD) ?

To Eusebius(325 AD ?), Athanasius (died 373), Augustine, Jerome (400-430 AD ?)


Yes,Licona says ALL the NT except 11 verses.

He also says WITHIN 3OO YEARS,so I asumed it means TILL 3OO AD.Here it is:

minoria said...

Hello Ken,

You have heard of DANIEL WALLACE,one of the greatest experts on the NT.There are 2 videos by him about the NT.

Ok beginning at MINUTE 15 of part 1 he says that in Boiron(that is how I heard the name,GERMANY there is a place where they been studying the CHURCH FATHERS for DECADES and have got 1 MILLION citations and we can reconstruct the NT.


Church Fathers is till till 7OO AD?,later than 3OO AD.



He is a scholar,I assume,but it is reasonable,he verified with their analysis to find out about the NUMBER of CITATIONS from Christian writers WITHIN 3OO YEARS.

minoria said...

Hello Sam:

I rechecked the article.You said Wallace sent an email to Islamic awareness saying they were right.

The article says it was last modified in May 2OO7.

I saw no link or statement about an endorsement by Wallace.You would EXpECT THAT.

So I tried to see if maybe it was somewhere else in islamic-awareness,I found no link or citation of a Wallace endorsement.

The Michael Licona video was posted in NOV 2OO9,so Licona would have said his lecture before tha time,but not very long..And Wallace said the German Institute that has catalogued the citations had done it a FEW YEARS ago,so the results would have been available for all to verify quickly,any scholar would have access to it:how many citations from 1OO-2OO AD,from 2OO-3OO AD.

Ken said...

Thanks for the links to Licona and D. Wallace. I had already watched and listened to Wallace's lecture a few weeks ago, and it was very good. He addresses the subject, but he doesn't talk about the "except 11 verses" and he includes Augustine and Jerome (400s) in his statement.

In Licona's talk that you linked to, he says "one scholar says" - all the 27 NT books except 11 verses. - but it is unclear if he means from 70 -300 AD or after 300 AD ?

I wonder if the "one scholar" is the same one in the Islamic Awareness article. (Dalrymple)

Daniel Wallace includes in his statement, about the ecfs, Augustine and Jerome, and they are around from 354-430 AD. This is before 300 AD.

Chrysostom (died around 407 AD) would need to be included.

It is believable if they include all early church fathers to 500 or 600 AD (with John of Damascus), but it is not believable if the cut off date is 300, because Irenaeus (200), Tertullian(200), Cyprian(255), Origen(255), Clement of Alexandria, etc. seems like it would not be enough.

It would be nice to see Daniel Wallace's public response to the specific article by the Islamic Awareness team.

Ken said...

Dk wrote:
"He made no attempt to even use DCT."

What is DCT ?

Sam said...

Minoria, neither Wallace nor Licona believe you can reconstruct the NT from the quotations of the first 300 years. What they believe is that you can do so by examining ALL OF THE FATHERS THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES, meaning the fathers who wrote AFTER the 4th century. So please provide an explicit quote where these men said what Jay said, namely, that the entire NT can be reconstructed from the quotations of the fathers from the first 300 years with the exception of 11 verses.

Sam said...

Minoria, it seems you too have a problem reading carefully. I never said that Wallace sent an email to Islamic Awareness. Please quote my words where I said such a things. I said that I have the emails where Wallace praised their article and said they were spot on.

This is for Ken. Wallace doesn't plan on refuting the Islamic Awareness simply because he is in agreement with the article. In fact, email Wallace and ask him what he thinks of the article and see what he tells you.

It is Smith's responsibility to address the article, especially since he continues to use this argument even though he has been aware that the Islamic Awareness team have already responded to this claim since 2006, going so far as to even mention him by name.

Sam said...

Minoria, I just checked the Licona video and he did say what you claimed. However, I just sent him a message on facebook to see what he has to say about Wallace's position regarding this issue and the article by Islamic Awareness. I will let you know his response.

John 8:24 said...

Sam, Minora & Ken,

Has any one of you contacted Jay Smith about the errors he made? I don't think he is reading the comments section of this post. As far as I know, Jay would be more than happy to correct his arguments but someone needs to point this out to him.

minoria said...

Hello Sam:

You are right that I misunderstood your statement:

" Dr. Daniel B. Wallace says that the Islamic Awareness team is correct. In fact, in an email he actually praised the article, indicating that this paper actually caused him to revise his views."

I assumed the email had been sent to Islamic awareness.

Now regarding the article by Islamic Awareness it nonetheless turns out near FIFTY ERCENT of the NT would be in the citations,so that is still a big amount.

The NT has EIGHT THOUSAND verses,so it comes to near FOUR THOUSAND.

What is hard to believe but it must be accurate is that MORE than ONE MILLION,the exact words of Wallace, citations are to be found in the Church Fathers,that would be four thousand till about 35O AD ,then ONE MILLION from then till 7OO AD.Or maybe they mean till the end of the Middle Ages.

minoria said...

Hell John:

I havent contacted Jay Smith but I think in almost all the mistakes he made it was just that he did not take a notebook with notes.If I were ever interviewed about Islam and Christianity I would carry it.I can not memorize all the verses and dates.

Ken said...

I have sent an email to Jay and asked him to take a look at this web-site.

Angelo said...

at the last part there is a technical mistake. Mr Jay is talking about Deuteronomy chapter 18 and the video is showing Deu chap 15

Ken said...

Jay emailed me back and acknowledged the mistakes, but he had no notes with him (all that he did was from his own memory, with just Bible and Qur'an there) and he cannot control the videos once they went out.

Overall, he did an excellent job considering he had no notes with him and just the Qur'an and a Bible.

Ken said...

Jay asked me to post this response:

Sam, Minoria, Ken, and others,

This is Jay Smith. I have been contacted by Ken, Sam, David, and others to look at the comments here concerning the errors I made in these videos, and let me say from the outset, I certainly have made some embarrassing errors, and am thankful to you all for finding them and posting them here for me and others to look over...and make sure I learn from them, so as not to repeat them.

So, why did I make these mistakes (or in some cases why do the scripts on the screen disagree with what I say); mostly because I did all of the 15 episodes, a total of over 6 hours of recording, 'off the top of my head', with no notes, in a period of two days, with a break of 15 minutes between each episode.

Some of the episodes were decided before-hand, but others we chose the topic just before each episode. At times we didn't even know where the agenda would go, which made it lively and spontaneous, a format I like, but also fraught with possible oversights.

I was in Australia for research in Melbourne, and only could spare those two days for CMP, in Sydney, as a last moment favour for them, while travelling back to the UK.

It would have been ideal if I could have seen the episodes before they made them public, so that I could have changed the mistakes which were there. But I saw the finished product, when you saw it, just a few weeks ago. I don't think I would do it again that way, knowing how exacting most people are.

It would be nice to still go back and correct those errors, but I'm afraid even CMP now don't own the originals, as they belong to Al Hayat,.who are head-quarted in Europe.

I trust, nonetheless, that the Lord can use them to help Muslims engage publicly with some of the inadequacies of their religion.

Meanwhile I am finishing up my time here in the US and will soon be back in the UK (next week), when I will then go thru each of your concerns above, and either concur, or try to respond to them on this blog.

God bless you all as you continue to engage with Islam publicly, in the many forums we have available to us.

It's great to be on the same team.

Jay Smith (Nov.28,2011)

Hemel said...

Nice humility Jay Smith.This is what we were expecting from you

Ian said...

Ian More on the reconstruction of the NT text from writings of the Ante- Nicene fathers. Re Islamic Awareness critique. Whatever the weaknesses in Dalrymples methodology , see the referencing work of Thomas Aquinas and others, transcribed as hypertext .