Previous post of this topic: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/12/br-imran-samuel-green-debate-video.html
Here is my video of my debate with Br. Imran from IREF. Surprisingly I have a much better sound quality than the IREF production.
If you want to show Muslims how IREF edit out bits of video then show them 1:49:25-1:50:20 of the IREF version at
Then show them 1:35:13-1:36:20 of the complete version at
You will see that after I recited the Qur'an the audience applauds but in the IREF production this has been edited out and the edit has been covered with a crowd shot. I guess this may seem like a small point but the IREF production changes what the audience response was at several other points throughout the event. The audience was a lot more positive than the IREF production indicates and I think it is important for people watching debates to feel this positive response.
mmm if that is true then IREF just lost all benefit of the doubt and one could call them having sinister intentions behind this. Samul you should post these as a response page to the links
Samuel, it makes a very big difference when video is edited, especially if it is edited in such a way to change the opinions and views of others not in attendence. It is no different than when the Media does it to create propaganda clips for their position on a matter. It would be similar to editing a text to influence the interpretation/meaning the author intended. What they did is not the same as editing dead space or some other trivial portion.
What they did was dishonest. I hope they are called out on it and hopefully they don't do it again. If they want to edit something, they should at least consider if it alters the context and influenced the viewers not in the audience to a specific bias. Why wouldn't they clear it with you beforehand anyways?
I will watch the new version and get a second look at the debate before I comment. I thought the edited version showed your presentation in a good light anyways. Thanks, Samuel, for your much needed work in ministry to Muslims. Blessings for you, Samuel, from our Lord, Jesus.
"Whoever dues without fighting or thought of fighting etc." I seen this on sams site but I cant find this verse in bukhari or muslimfrom the links on your site. Can you help?
Thanks aaron and simple_truth. I will take those comments on board.
Craig, I am not sure which verse you are referring to.
@ samuel green on sams site sahih muslim I believe 3353 is the hadith number the verse refers too muhammad saying "if muslim have not fought or dont think about fighting then there on a branch of hypocrisy". When I use the sahih muslim web link on this site the hadith 3353 isnt the same. So I dnt know if im navigating threw the site incorrectly.
Concerning 'discrepencies between the four gospels.'
There is only one Gospel (the Good News of Salvation) which is related from the pespective of four individuals; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
If four people are present at any event (in this case a series of events which occured over months and years) they will not all be focused on exactly the same point at once and will therefore relate the event differently and according to their individual personalities.
The imams' statement of "nobody knows who wrote the Bible" is easily refuted with:
"For David himself said by the Holy Spirit..." Mark 12:36
"...for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11
...after he through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom he had chosen. Acts 1:2
These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual... 1Corinthians 2:13, 14
It was the Holy Spirit who wrote the Bible through the prophets.
...knowing this first, that no prophesy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophesy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2Peter 1:20, 21
Did Moses really write Genesis?
A deadly hypothesis denying that Moses had anything to do with Genesis, based on spurious scholarship, is still widely being taught to future Christian leaders.
by Russell Grigg (creation.com)
Egyptian ruins. Internal evidences in the text of the Pentateuch indicate that the author was familiar with Egyptian customs, as would be expected of Moses.
Nearly all liberal Bible colleges and seminaries, and sadly some which profess conservative evangelical doctrine, approvingly teach the ‘documentary hypothesis’, also known as the ‘JEDP hypothesis’.
What is the documentary hypothesis?
This is the liberal/critical view which denies that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy. It teaches that various anonymous authors compiled these five books (plus other portions of the Old Testament) from centuries of oral tradition, up to 900 years after Moses lived (if, in this view, he even existed). These hypothetical narrators are designated as follows:
•J (standing for what the documentary hypothesists would term Jahwist) supposedly lived about 900–850 BC. He/she/they allegedly gathered the myths and legends of Babylon and other nations, and added them to the ‘camp-fire stories’ of the Hebrews, producing those biblical passages where the Hebrew letters YHWH (‘Jehovah’) are used as the name of God.
•E (standing for Elohist) supposedly lived about 750–700 BC in the northern kingdom (Israel), and wrote those passages where ’Elohim is used as the word for God.
•D supposedly wrote most of Deuteronomy, probably the book found in the temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC. (2 Kings 22:8).
•P supposedly represents a Priest (or priests) who lived during the exile in Babylon and allegedly composed a code of holiness for the people.
•Various editors R (from German Redakteur) supposedly put it all together.
The idea of multiple authorship of these books was first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753. However, the foremost exponent was Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who ‘restated the Documentary Hypothesis … in terms of the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical circles at the time’.1,2 He claimed that those parts of the Old Testament that dealt with sophisticated doctrine (one God, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, etc.) were not truth revealed by the living God, but were ideas that evolved from lower stages of thinking, including polytheism, animism, ancestor worship, etc.3 Hence the ‘need’ to find or fabricate later authors. One of the main arguments was that writing had supposedly not been invented yet at the time of Moses.
Thus the documentary hypothesis undermines the authenticity of the Genesis Creation/Fall/Flood accounts, as well as the whole patriarchal history of Israel. It presupposes that the whole of the Old Testament is one gigantic literary fraud, and calls into question not only the integrity of Moses, but also the trustworthiness/divinity of Jesus (see point 5 below). No wonder the critics have embraced it so warmly!
Was Moses J, E, D, P, or R?
Answer: He was none of the above. Rather, Moses himself was both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, and these five books were composed by him in about 1400 BC, not by unknowns at the time of the Exile. This does not mean that Moses did not use other written sources available to him (see later), or that he wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy 34 that record his death.
Talmudic (Rabbinic Jewish) tradition has always been that these were added, under divine inspiration, by Joshua.
There is no external evidence at all in support of J, E, D, P, or R. What were their names? What else did these alleged literary savants write? History, both Hebrew and secular, knows nothing of them. They exist only in the fertile imaginations of the inventors of the documentary hypothesis.
Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch:
Clay tablets were ideal for long-term written records. Far from ‘Flintstones’ clumsiness, these could be held in one hand.
Patriarchal records may have been carried on the Ark, later used by Moses in compiling Genesis (under inspiration).
The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:
•Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses (see reference 4)
•The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,(5) flora and fauna of the region;(6) he uses several Egyptian words,(7) and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.(8)
3.The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
4.Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13
5.In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
6.Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.
Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
There are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are (or ‘This is the book of’) the generations of …’ The Hebrew word toledoth translated ‘generations’ can also mean ‘origins’, ‘history’, or even ‘family history’, and each verse comes either before or after a description of historical events that involved the person named.(9) The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.(10)
Genesis does not show a progress from idolatry to monotheism, as Wellhausen’s evolutionism requires. Rather, the Bible begins with an original revelation of God, which was later rejected to the point that the Hebrew nation itself descended into idolatry and so was given over to captivity by God.
What about the different words used for God?
Let us consider this in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The word ’Elohim is used for God 25 times in Genesis 1:1–2:4a.(11) It has the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created. It is a lofty title (= ‘God’) and is the appropriate word for Moses to have used for the first factual report of God’s creative activities.(12)
In Genesis chapter 2 from verse 4, the Hebrew uses the letters YHWH to refer to God. Sometimes translated ‘Jehovah’, it is more often translated ‘LORD’ (in small capitals), and is the most commonly used term for God in the Old Testament (6,823 times). It means ‘the One who always was, now is, and ever shall be’ and is the deeply personal name of God. It is therefore used in His personal and covenant relationships with people. Genesis 2:4b ff is the detailed account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them.(13) Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him14 and with each other. It was entirely appropriate therefore that Moses should have used YHWH in writing this section of Genesis. In Genesis 2, YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the compound name YHWH-’Elohim (= the Lord God). This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being one and the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author(s).
The same principles apply in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament.
The JEDP system is self-contradictory, as its proponents need to break verses into sections and even credit parts of sentences (that use more than one term for God) to different writers. Such a hotchpotch would be unique in ancient Middle Eastern literature.
The ‘scholarship’ used to promote the documentary hypothesis would be laughed out of court if applied to any other ancient book!
Computer agrees: Genesis had only one author
The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982:
‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’
Ultimately, the author of Genesis was God, working through Moses. This does not mean that God used Moses as a ‘typewriter’. Rather, God prepared Moses for his task from the day he was born. When the time came, Moses had all the necessary data, and was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit as to what he included and what he left out. This is consistent with known history, and with the claims and principles of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21).
On the other hand there is no historical evidence, and no spiritual or theological basis whatsoever for the deceptive JEDP hypothesis. Its teaching is completely false; the ‘scholarship’ that promotes it is totally spurious. Propped up by the theory of evolution, it exists solely to undermine the authority of the Word of God.
References and notes
•Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, 1981, p. 45.
•Notable exponents of Wellhausenism were Samuel R. Driver in England (1891), and Charles A. Briggs in the USA (1893). Since Wellhausen’s time, other liberal critics have ‘found’ up to 40 alleged contributors to the Pentateuch, including an Edomite source S and a Canaanite source K — there are almost as many subdivisions as there have been ‘experts’ finding sources!
3.Adapted from Dave Breese, Seven Men Who Rule the World from the Grave, Moody Press, Chicago, 1990, pp. 89 ff.
4.Adapted from Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Michigan, 1982, pp. 51–52.
5.In Genesis 13:10 the Jordan valley is compared with ‘the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar’—appropriate only for readers unfamiliar with the Jordan Valley in Palestine but acquainted with Egypt. Hence written near the time of the Exodus from Egypt, not many centuries later.
6.The crop sequence in Exodus 9:31–32 is Egyptian, not Palestinian. The trees and animals referred to are mostly indigenous to Egypt or the Sinai Peninsula, not Palestine, e.g. the acacia tree, used for the tabernacle furniture, is native to Egypt and Sinai, but is hardly found in Canaan, except around the Dead Sea. The skins prescribed for the outer covering of the tabernacle in Exodus 26:14 (Hebrew tachash), were most likely those of the dugong or sea cow (Zool. Sirenia)—found in the sea adjacent to Egypt and Sinai but foreign to Palestine. See ref. 4, p. 46 ff..
7.More Egyptian loan words are found in the Pentateuch than anywhere else in the Bible, as would be expected if the author was Moses ‘learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22). The very name ‘Moses’ is Egyptian not Hebrew (Exodus 2:10).
8.There is no mention in the Pentateuch of the temple, or that Jerusalem would be its future location — the only centre of worship mentioned was the tabernacle, a tent..
9.Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2. The first of these, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 2:4), does not mention a human name, as no man was present during Creation Week until day six. The information was probably revealed by God to Adam, who then recorded it (ref. 10).
10.Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 22–30; also Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee, personal communication, April 1998..
11.’Elohim is a Hebrew plural form meaning ‘two or more’. In Genesis 1:1 it occurs with the verb ‘created’ (Hebrew bara’) in the singular form. It is thus a plural noun with a singular meaning, suggesting the uni-plurality of the Godhead. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is thus foreshadowed in the Bible right from the very first verse. See also the use of the word ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7.
12.Note that the power of God associated with the use of this word is seen much more clearly in His having created the vast contents of space, as well as the astounding complexities and minutiae of life on Earth, in the short timespan of Creation Week, rather than in any long-drawn-out evolutionary timetable. See C.V. Taylor, The First 100 Words, The Good Book Co., Gosford, NSW, Australia, p. 3, 1996.
13.There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. In Matthew 19:3–6, Jesus quoted from both accounts together, 1:27 and 2:24, showing them to be equally authoritative and fully supplementary. See also D. Batten, ‘Genesis Contradictions?’ Creation 18(4):44–45, 1996; R.M. Grigg, ‘Should Genesis be taken literally?’ Creation 16(1):38–41, 1993.
14.Cf. Hosea 6:7: ‘But they like men [Hebrew: literally ‘like Adam’ or ‘in Adam’] have transgressed the covenant …’
(Also available in Greek)
This article can also be read at creation.com/did Moses really write genesis?
I can't find it in Muslim, but it is mentioned on the following Islamic website:
Ruling on Jihad and Kinds of Jihad
I hope that helps.
I don't think this debate was fair in that the spokes person for Islam just took over in the Q & A time. But apart from that, I noticed in surah which Samuel posted which said...
79:27-30 What, are you stronger in constitution or the heaven He built? He lifted up its vault, and levelled it, and darkened its night, and brought forth its forenoon; and the earth-after that He spread it out...
Since when has heaven had a night and a forenoon????
Thank you for the video Samuel.
I thought your opening statement was excellent. Comprehensive and clear.
The atmosphere in the room came across as slightly menacing to me, but you handled it with aplomb.
The Q&A session seemed shambolic and the adjudication pitiful. And what on earth was Br Imran playing at when he harangued that poor girl at the end with his dawa'h-instead-of-an-answer malarky ?
Still, it was vaguely entertaining being given an impromptu Latin lesson by a clown.
Samuel, you have done a great job here. You can't expect a good behaviour from Imram. He was there just to humililate christian instead of putting a good debate.
@ Mr. Anthony Rogers
Sorry for the confusion here is the hadith from Sam website. Muslim (3533) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever dies without having fought or thought to himself about fighting has died following one of the branches of hypocrisy."
When I went to the link on this website for sahih Muslim I couldn't find this. The number 3533 was a different verse. Thank you for your help. God bless
Sahih Muslim Book 020, Hadith Number 4696.
Chapter : Denunciation of one who died but never fought in the way of Allah nor did he ever express a desire or determination for jihad.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.
'Abdullah b. Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).
To answer whether or not Moses wrote the Book of Genesis is simple:
God revealed His Name YAHWEH "ONLY" to Moses (Exodus 6:3).
Therefore, since the Name YAHWEH is mentioned in Genesis, it can only be written by Moses, not anyone BEFORE him.
Meaning, he used YAHWEH not because that's what He revealed Himself to Abraham and the others but that how Moses knew Him.
Nothingbutthetruth that is 'nothing' but a blatant non-sequitor.
@samuel, sam, anthony, is this even worth watching or do we have a repeat of 85 deedat dribble and samuel green repeating stuff from other debates and his articles e.g. Warsh hafs etc?
Regarding the audience who gives a toss whose side laymen are cheering for. The fact that they edited it shows a deep insecurity.
Br. Imran says, "....50,000 errors in the bible..."
Me - *facepalm!* So outdated... Really pray that the people will be more critical than that.
well, there is a reason i am a christian and you are an atheist!
do you understand why i said that's why i am a christian and you are an atheist?
Because of what Jesus said, unless you accept the message of the kingdom as a child, you will never enter in it. The message of the Gospel is the most easiest/simplest thing to accept, yet many want it to be so complicated in order for it to make sense.
That's why Paul said, " 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1:19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by THE FOOLISHNESS of preaching. 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.
My point is if Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, then he is the only one who qualifies to be the writer of Genesis (I already gave my reasoning above).
When it come to God and His revelation, the Bible is the only book I am 100% respect. Period! You like that or not, that's your business.
Bro. Samuel, you did very well in the debate, despite the terrible and ridiculing performance of Br. Imran.
I did use a lot of previous material. Each time I try to present it better and with some new bits to a new audience. I can feel your point but just try to answer the question the best I can every time I have to debate.
you know another thing about Imtan is that he does not go back up his claims. goes harp on and on it gets boring when he doesn't make any references to some of his claims
Nothin'but the truth,
I see what you are saying. I posted the article for a more in-depth look at some of the devil's tricks; so that:
"...we are not ignorant of his devices." 2corinthians 2:11
I like your style and presentation of debate, and I try to be passive and polite at times and aggressive and argumentative at others but many of your arguments can be used more forcefully. E.g. The warsh and hafs differences alone simply do not falsify the orthodox Islamic position, neither does pointing out Uthman burnt variants and manuscripts, to understand why you have to fully grasp the orthodox view. I understand you maybe giving arguments that are on the surface but Muslims are arrogantly boasting about the magnificent purity and pristine form and preservation of the Quran mean while every part of this preservation proccess has a sunken battleship, the ones that have studied this e.g. Zawadi and Andualsi know the bad shape the Quran is in so they redefine what perfect preservation means as "A chapter/verse not "falsely˝ added to or missing". And "perfect preservation as defined and understood by Islam and Muslim scholars".
They are extremely clever and precise in their crafty definition in order to avoid having evidence their scriptures are falsified.
This means you could have text literally burnt out of the Quran and still have a 'rightly' removed verse/word per this question begging.
This is why it is essential to truly attack the core of this and other arguments at every level.
Cowards like Naik and his students will simply never debate the chaotic nature the Quran is in with an esteemed anti-islamicist but I would love to see their face as you brought this up.
That is another small criticism by making the title to generic you let them escape a narrow road down to the lane of truth.
I'm going to watch this debate and feel like I'm going back to the beginning of the magical showmanahip performing arts of Muslim dawah.
Samuel, nicely done! I noticed your sharper edge during a portion of the debate where it was obvious you were irritated at Imran by his stupidity... I think we need to see more of that in my opinion ;)
This was the most intense debate I watched from the side that you were definitely among wolves who were out to get you. I felt sorry for all the Muslims who kept clapping and saying Allah Akbar... I felt they were not there to listen to you but rather cheer the other side. At least your consistent arguments were drilled home. I think Imram's best defense was raising his voice, mocking you and the Bible, and beating his chest.
I could hardly listen to Imram, he was very annoying and I don't know how you kept your cool except by the Holy Spirit.
It should also be pointed out that that Imran quite often used a very familiar and fallacious tactic throughout the debate (and when answering questions from the audience) called ‘elephant hurling,’ where the speaker of one side of a debate uses overwhelming amounts of material or numerous unsupported claims, designed to swamp and confuse the opponent and/or the audience into giving up and just accepting their points at face value.
apparently CC is having a little tantrum in his blog right now its funny because Samuel in no way changed the atmosphere of the debate. Iref. who call samuel editing Lol the original agreement was to have samuel's slides in it from the beginnning
Post a Comment