What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
MISTAKES THAT QUENNEL GALE COMMITED IN HIS REFUTATION & IN DEFENSE OF BR. OSAMA ABDALLAH AND ISLAM
Quennel Gale's comments to Osama Abdallah's comments are in black. Mine are inblue The scope of this paper is to highlight the several assumptions and logical fallacies of one Mr. Quennel Gale, which he presented in his answer to Osama Abdallah's paper. I will not be refuting every single paragraph in detail, because Br. Osama have done the job himself. However, what I wish to point out in this paper is the assumptions and logical fallacies deployed by the Critic himself to achieve his means, which had not escaped my attention (there are many others, but these are the more serious ones). I wish to then let the honest and sincere reader, not bigoted Christians such as the Critic himself, to evaluate Br. Osama's statements and re-evaluate the claims of this Critic that Br. Osama have been using deception to see if what Br. Osama have stated in his article above is false or not. FALLACY 1: The Issue of "Monogenes" The Critic, for the most part of his argument, brought up the fact that Jesus being called the "Son" of God is distinguished from others who were called "Sons" in that Jesus was specifically called as an "only begotten" son. His argument:
Now lets talk about Osamas misunderstanding of ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. The word for ONLY in the Greek language is MONOGENES which is defined, as the only one of its kind. The reason why Christian apologists can claim this is because we know the meaning of this word only. For more information we turn to Strongs Concordance of the Bible for the word: Monogenes Definition:1. single of its kind, only a. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) b.used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word 'monogenes' in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind". As a result, "unique" is a good translation. It does not mean "only begotten", it means "only". The reason you sometimes find translations that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an ancient heresy within the church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term 'monogenes' into Latin as "unigenitus" ("only begotten").The Greek term for "begotten" is 'gennao' as found in Mt.1:2, which John did not use. Therefore, Strong's Concordance did not translate the word 'monogenes' correctly for (b), because 'monogenes' means "only" or "unique", not "only begotten". The link to Strong's Concordance on "monogenes" can be found at the following: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3439&version=kjv FALLACY 2: The Issue of "Kurios"
Mr. Osama doesnt have any knowledge of the word lord Kurios in Greek. Strong concordance says this about the word when it refers to the Messiah- 1.he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord a. the possessor and disposer of a thing 1.the owner; one who has control of the person, the master. b.is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master c.this title is given to: God, the Messiah. When referring to Jesus, it has always meant a sign of divinity. Since this term has always applied to God and the Messiah and Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe that Christ is the Messiah then this clearly shows just how divine Jesus really is. If Osama wants to teach about Christianity he should go out and purchase a Greek concordance and interlinear text. You dont have to know Greek to find this stuff out. What do you have to lose Osama?The editors of the New Testament have created confusion by translating the Greek word 'Theos' (meaning, God) as "Lord" and, the Greek word 'kurios' (meaning, Master, Owner, Head of a house) as "Lord", as well. For those who consider Jesus to be God, it may not make any difference, but for the rest it does. The link to Strong's Concordance on the word 'kurios' can be found at the following: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2962&version=kjv And the link to Strong's Concordance on 'theos' can be found at: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=kjv As for the argument that calling Jesus "Messiah" means that he has Divinity, I invite the reader to read my article refuting this claim: http://members.xoom.com/lordexarkun/Islam/almaseeh.html FALLACY 3: The Issue of "Royal Plural" Osama's comments in green:
If the word "us" in the book of Genesis is refering to Trinity as trinitanians believe, then how come people back then were not Trinitanians? How come the concept of Trinity was born 2300 years after the book of Genesis? More than 1/3 of The Holy Quran (The Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more")' Holy Book) talks about Allah Almighty (GOD).Allah Almighty in numerous verses says "We" about himself. Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") today believe in One GOD and don't believe in Trinity. Jews also believe in One GOD and not in Trinity, even though in their Holy Books such as the Talmud, GOD refers to Himself as "We" and not "I". My dear friend, you must first study the languages of Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic before you (as a trinitanian) start corrupting the Old Testament's real meanings. I think this would be a sin! I totally agree with Mr. Osama about studying languages of Hebrew. Unfortunately this idea of Plural of intensification isnt known in ancient Hebrew and is a modern explanation based on the sayings of Queen Victoria, who spoke English!! In ancient cultures of the Middle East, the Kings or people in high positions in the Bible said I when referring to themselves not WE. Dont believe me then read Daniel when Nebcudnezzer spoke. I wrote an article on this matter and first showed a Hebrew expert I knew and he couldnt really prove that there was a plural of majesty, etc. I will add it on at a later date. The Critic's statement only goes to show how much he knows about Semitic languages - a near zero. In the Qur'an (Arabic), Allah sometimes refer to Himself as "We" - a majestic plural, which Hebrew and Aramaic certainly has. I am interested to see what proof the Critic supposedly has and I will certainly be ready to refute it with what resources I currently have. FALLACY 4: Misunderstanding of John 10:30 What Osama doesnt tell his reader is that Christians look on Jesus as a servant too, but he doesnt show the claims of Jesus. Just look at John 10:31-33: 30 I and the Father are one." 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus himself said this and they stoned him. So for Osama to say that Jesus wasnt God because of this matter is fallible since Jesus claimed to be both a servant and God. So the Critic believes the Jews' claim more than Jesus! We need to take note of the verses following the 30th verse in the text. In those verses, the Jews accuse Jesus falsely of claiming to be God by these words. He however replies, proving their accusation wrong by their own text: "The Jews answered him saying, 'For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thyself a God ' " (John 10:33). Jesus replies to this accusation saying: "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said ye are gods. If He can call them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemeth," because I said I am the son of God?'" (John 10:34-36). Therefore, Jesus is saying that just as the Jews called those who are sanctified by 'The Father', "gods", so too does Jesus have the right to be called "a son of God" FALLACY 5: The Critic's Straw Man Argument Osama's comments in green:
Let us look at John 5:31 "If I (Jesus) alone bear witness about myself, my witness is not true. There is another that bears witness about me, and I know that the witness which he bears about me is true." Here we also see that Jesus admits and preaches to his followers that he is not powerful. The only powerful is GOD, his GOD. Jesus never mentioned anything about power. Mr. Osama is trying to develop a straw man argument and then refute it to show his reader that Jesus wasnt powerful. However, talking about a witness is totally different than power. The Greek word for power is dhynami, which isnt present at all in this verse. The Critic Quennel Gale is correct in asserting that this verse is not talking about power. However, I do not think that this is a straw man argument, because Br. Osama is trying to relate this verse to a previous one, which shows the distinction between God and Jesus. In this verse, we can clearly see that Jesus is saying that SOMEONE ELSE is bearing witness over him and if that SOMEONE ELSE is not bearing witness over him, his witness alone would render his statements true. One only has to ask a very basic question: "If Jesus is God, why would he say that he needs SOMEONE ELSE to bear witness over him? Doesn't that mean that SOMEONE ELSE has a higher authority over him, someone POWERFUL over him?" When seen in this context, Br. Osama's argument is not a straw man argument after all, it is merely an interpolation of the original one, perhaps.The Statement here (5:31) might be paraphrased as follows If I testify about myself, you will say my testimony is not valid. Against the charge our Lord, in defending his messianic claims urges the biblical rule of evidence which requires two or three witnesses (Num. 35:30; DT. 17:6; Jn 8:17-18). The additional witnesses are cited in vs. 32-47. (IBID). Jesus had to have a witness in order to go along with the rules set by God in the OT.I think the Critic is trying to create a straw man's argument here. Jesus has made no reference that he is talking about the prophecy of Scriptures about his coming. To validate his argument, the Critic should produce a verse in this Chapter 5 of the Gospel of John that Jesus is indeed making a reference to the prophecies about his coming.Its amazing how Muhammad never had a single witness to verify his alleged call at the cave. This disqualifies him from being a prophet based on Gods rules.So, are you saying that Muhammad's call at the Cave of Hira' is not mentioned in the Bible? Please read Isaiah 29:12 (read verses 11 through 18 for full context), the Critic will be amazed, for sure. Since I do not wish to create a straw man's argument here as the Critic have done, I will not go into detail about the stated prophecy about Muhammad (pbuh). The reader, however, is free to e-mail me to discuss about this prophecy and many other prophecies about the coming of Muhammad s.a.w. which can be found at my site in this link. FALLACY 6: The Critic's argumentum ad hominem Osama's comments in green:
I would like to take this apportunity to thank you very much for taking the time to read my paper. I wish it was helpful and useful for you in your journey in seeking and learning about the truth of the Almighty God. May God bless you all the way. Mr. Osama flat out lies about Psalms 45:3 and 2 Samuel. These are the many things present in his paper. I am glad that I read it to discover his covering up of the truth. And I am glad that I read his to see the means he tries to justify to achieve his ends. The Critic is commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, or name-calling in other words, to Br. Osama. The Critic has no warrant to substantiate his claim and as I have laid out above, has himself commited many logical fallacies himself. FALLACY 7: The Critic's Fallacy of EquivocationI will add more articles in the future. To see how Allah is actually mice read this link - http://www.geocities.com/queball23/AllahAkbar.htmThis is actually a deviant from the main Issue, but I wish to answer it in brief. To his claim that "Akbar" means mice, to sum up his whole article which I have read, I will answer this argument when I have the time, Insya-Allah. What I wish to add here is that the Critic's fundamental argument is already flawed to begin with. Just because the word "Akbar" in Ancient Chaldee language originally mean "mice", that does not abrogate the fact that "Akbar" have evolved to mean "Great" in Arabic. For example, in my mother tongue (Bahasa Melayu), the word "kitab", the word being borrowed from Arabic, is primarilly used for "Scripture". The Muslim Malaysians call the Qur'an "Kitab Allah". However, I am made to understand that the original meaning of the word "kitab" covers not only "Scriptures", but also encompasses other meanings too. In this same way, even if what the Critic say is true, i.e. that "Akbar" originally means "mice", it does not change the fact that the Arabs use the word "Akbar" for the word "Great". The word "Injeel" is primarily used for the Gospel of God sent to Jesus, but originally meant "Good News" (from Gr: Evangelion). And as I have said, even if the argument of the Critic is found to be correct, then what can he say about the 6 - 10 million Christians living in the Middle East, who speak Arabic and use the word "Akbar" to mean Great? I suppose when they say the word "Akbar", they really mean that they are mice? Being a bigoted Westerner, the Critic sadly has no respect for those who are of the same faith as him. Just as Dr. Morey before him have tried to "prove" that the word "Allah" is the name of a moon-god, so is the Critic using the same method of trying to "prove" that the word "Akbar" mean mice. And I suppose just as the Arab Christians who are worshipping "Allah", are worshipping a "Moon-god", so too is the Critic asserting that they (Arab Christians) are calling the God of the Bible "mice" whenever they wish to praise Him as "Great"? The reader can read my refutation to the Moon-god lie by Dr. Morey by clicking here. The Critic here has committed here what in logic is known as the fallacy of eqivocation. He takes a term which meant one thing in a certain context and the same term which means another thing in a new context and pretends that since the term is the same the meaning is also the same. He argues that the word "Akbar "of the Ancient Chaldee is used to meant "mice", and the word "Akbar" is also used by the Arabs, therefore the word share the same meaning in these languages. To see how this fallacy works, consider this argument for illustration:
This argument of course is not true. Now let us consider the Critic's argument:
So the Critic implies that "Akbar" is therefore "mice". But this is no more true than to say that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor. CONCLUSION The reader can judge for himself the methods deployed by the Critic to achieve his ends. I have certainly not and would not stoop so low to the level of the Critic to deploy misunderstandings and logical fallacies such as ad hominem arguments. I leave it to the reader who it is who is really biased and bigoted in his assessment. Peace to those who seek the Truth of God. MORE TEXT TO BE ADDED SOON, INSYA' ALLAH
Last Modified: 13th May 2000 Visit my website at BISMIKA ALLAHUMA.cjb.net For any comments or suggestions, please e-mail me Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi at firstname.lastname@example.org
From Me, Osama Abdallah: Please visit my third rebuttal to Answering Islam's rebuttal: Part 3. You will see how deceiving the team of Answering Islam really are by ignoring 70% of my original paper's points.
Back to Answering Trinity section.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube