Apologetics to Muslims: Jonathan McLatchie on Line of Fire Radio with Dr. Michael Brown
Here is the recording of my interview from yesterday on Line of Fire radio with Dr. Michael Brown on Islam in the UK and apologetics in regards to Muslims. Enjoy!
The Muslim criteria for determining the authenticity of any given verse in the Bible is simply this:
If it helps to supports Muhammad then it is authentic, if it testifies against him then it is corrupt.
This is obviously not an objective criteria. If Muslims quote verses from the Gospel of John to support Muhammad, then they also need to provide credible evidence to show why we should reject as corrupt those verses in this Gospel that contradict him. The same would apply to verses from any other book of the Bible they quote.
Reg Singh, bingo. Muslims have a serious dilemma. They say the bible is corrupt and yet quote verses like the one in the Gospel of John to support their view that Muhammad is being spoken of. How do they know that this verse isn't corrupt? Their answer is that the verses that align with the Quran are the ones that aren't corrupt. It's a circular argument and they need to see their error and abandon this approach.
@Andy So True! To me, the only real verse where Muhammad is being spoken of in the Bible approximately 600 years before his birth is in Matthew 7:15 that says: "Watch out for false prophets [Muhammad; Joseph Smith], who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves". This verse truly spokes about the false prophet Muhammad in his lifetime who started Peaceful Meccan surahs, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Militant Medinan surahs, revealed after Mohammed had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose. Muhammad did successfully unleashed a "Satanic Deadly Generational Curse" that's been going on for well over 1400 years and still as deadly today as it was during Muhammad shameful lifetime...Smh! :(
4 comments:
The Muslim criteria for determining the authenticity of any given verse in the Bible is simply this:
If it helps to supports Muhammad then it is authentic, if it testifies against him then it is corrupt.
This is obviously not an objective criteria. If Muslims quote verses from the Gospel of John to support Muhammad, then they also need to provide credible evidence to show why we should reject as corrupt those verses in this Gospel that contradict him. The same would apply to verses from any other book of the Bible they quote.
Reg Singh, bingo. Muslims have a serious dilemma. They say the bible is corrupt and yet quote verses like the one in the Gospel of John to support their view that Muhammad is being spoken of. How do they know that this verse isn't corrupt? Their answer is that the verses that align with the Quran are the ones that aren't corrupt. It's a circular argument and they need to see their error and abandon this approach.
Love this and your site!!!!
@Andy So True! To me, the only real verse where Muhammad is being spoken of in the Bible approximately 600 years before his birth is in Matthew 7:15 that says: "Watch out for false prophets [Muhammad; Joseph Smith], who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves". This verse truly spokes about the false prophet Muhammad in his lifetime who started Peaceful Meccan surahs, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Militant Medinan surahs, revealed after Mohammed had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.
Muhammad did successfully unleashed a "Satanic Deadly Generational Curse" that's been going on for well over 1400 years and still as deadly today as it was during Muhammad shameful lifetime...Smh! :(
Post a Comment