The Bible, Quran and Science – vs Christian Apologist
Date:
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 125.42MB
AI Generated Transcript ©
vigil examples including embryology, that way, both of our audiences will know, you know, where we stand on the issues? Yeah. How does that sound? That sounds fine. Alright. So I wanted to say first and foremost, is that we and I think maybe you'll agree with me here.
We don't say that science is incorrigible, or that it produces eternal sets of truth. And we know that the scientific method is based on falsification, as Karl Popper and others have stipulated. And as such, there can be changed in science, even that which is referred to as scientific fact. We know that Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called the structures of scientific revolution, which talks about what he refers to as paradigm shift. You've got that book on. So many, I think, both agree that we shouldn't be using science as a yardstick for truth in an absolute sense, because maybe me and you will agree that science is itself not a perfect or eternal incorrigible enterprise. Would you agree
with that? Can I reply? Yes, of course. So I agree with the general thesis laid out by Muhammad, I agree with it. However, there are relative truths with in greater paradigms that we can establish, as certain things that we have no reason to indicate. Because until there is a greater degree of observational tool,
as well as the fact that technology itself will reach a limit in terms of what observations it can make, will mean that there is a conclude stivity to certain observations, certain observations are not or they're not all like speculative physics, like the multiverse and discussions about the Big Bang, and, you know, questions about what gravity is, yeah, some things are actually indisputable
descriptions of the material world, such as the chemical compound of water, h2o. Alright. So in a sense, I kind of do agree with you. But I'd like to kind of couch my language in more specific and sophisticated terminology, I think you're right to say that there's different epistemic weights to different observations that one can have scientifically. Yeah. But I would I would use it on a scale of probability. So for instance, yeah, exactly. So for instance, like if I say
that men have X, Y chromosomes and women have X X chromosomes, that to me seems more certain facts, then string theory, for instance, because string theory was is new hasn't had the same kind of
kind of peer reviewed exposure, as has, you know, the biological understanding of x, y versus xx, I think, I think mean, you've got enough grasp the scientific method to now move the conversation forward. So yeah, so that's good. So what we're saying is, effectively, we agree on the fact that science
is not an eternal truth, but that certain things are probabilistically more possible than others? Yes. And that some observations, we have no grounds to dispute. Would you agree with that? There are certain observations within science? Yeah, I would agree with them. And lenses, like the x, y and x x? Well, I mean, it's a bit more complicated than that, because there's x x, y, and there's
these additions, rather than replacements for more. Yeah, exactly. So there's so they weren't within a certain paradigm. Right. So now, here's let me let me lay out my case. Yeah. Cuz I'm the prosecutor. In this discussion. Now, we're both prosecutors. And we're both defendants, right? Well,
we talked about the fact that Yeah, we're gonna bring both of the books, that's absolutely fine. Yeah, that's absolutely fine. So in terms of the standard, so I'm going to lay out my case, in terms of the standard that the Quran lays out for itself. It sees in Surah 482, you probably know it off the top of your head, what does he say? golkar. Number nine divided by geography afterlife, and kathira. If it was some other than God, they would have found that in many inconsistences Yeah, exactly. Many. Yeah. And I'll just I'll just read it in the translation that we've got here as well. Yes. So just to make sure that there's no dispute for Christians to do they do they not consider the
Quran carefully. Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found there in many a contradiction. Now, many a contradiction can be internal contradictions, or it can be external contradictions. Agreed? Yes. So Muslims have marshaled and I accused the dour, those who are doing dour. I accused them of lying deliberately, because they claim I'm going to demonstrate that it's false.
The Quran my way you say they let's be clear.
Let's be let's be very specific because people like zakia Knight, people like Adnan Rashid, people like so. I've given you some examples shall be What are you talking about? Exactly? And like, are you talking because you have to understand something, I think it's very important to realize that we don't all have the same view when it comes to this. I agree. So it's not I don't think it's very clever to generalize. But I tried to be specific. I didn't save the day those doing.
And I gave example.
That's why I just had to interrupt to make sure that that kind of specificity was ensured. Okay. So we've clarified that. So now in terms of the the argument, you'll either Yeah,
no, no, no, it's totally fine. In terms of in terms of the argument,
in terms of the argument against Muslims make the argument that the Quran accurately describes embryology. That's what they say. No, I'm talking I've qualified that. So when I say Muslims, I'm speaking about certain kinds of Muslims. Like I've Manny Rashid, like Zaki, and I, right, right. Shabbir Ali, not every Muslim. I fully appreciate that. Yeah. So
it is fair, therefore, for me to test that argument, of course. Right. So when I look at the description in the Quran, yeah. And I'm going to read it to you, I'm going to ask you to, to just just qualify for me what you think the stages or that are being described? So if we go to Surah, 2312.
So 12 to 14, if you want to recite that while I'm getting that English now it's fine. You can just go ahead. Okay, fair enough. But just before I do recite it, if you want me to,
to speak, it's not just 43, which talks about, I notice there's 22 as well. Yeah.
I've got that. Yeah. So what drove me to go through all the stages? No, no, no, I'm going to read it. And when you hear a stage, I want you to stop me, interrupt me and say this is the stage is that fair? so that everyone can hear the case being made out? Right? And resolved. And indeed, we created man, out of an extract of clay. Thereafter, we made him as an author, not fun, not fun, thank you. And in a safe lodging, then we made the NAFTA not not into a plot. Then to a sorry, into a clot. We made the clot into a little lump of flesh. Yeah. Then we made out of that little lump of flesh bones. Then we closed the bones with flesh. Yep. And then we brought the pore as another creation.
Yeah. So how many stages Did you hear that?
In this
lesson, I'm insula teaming team. Number one team. So the clay Omar saclay Yep. Alright. And then you have former john
Mackey we made them into a note for in a safe lodging. So not far note for
the safe lodging for tala cotton
for Hakuna Matata. irama focus on
China Hong Kong.
So you hear three stages? None So
no, no, you got you got you got. So let's go with milk. Fuck, yeah. embryology in particular, right. So if you have not fun, yeah. Which then you have madhva, which is Mottola is an alum. Yeah. And by the way on this No, no, no, no.
No, I'm doing it but you have to let me say what it is. Yeah. In chapter 22. It says about Motorola. Motorola got involved at mohalla so it's partly formed and partly unformed. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And then so after Motorola you have aloka claw and then after Alka you have Ivonne which is bones. Yeah. And then you have after that flesh, okay. So right now again, just like the Muslim brother before him without any prompting from me. No prompting from me at all. Mohammed said you have bones then flesh Yeah, so that's two Muslims Yeah. independently and he jobs inexperienced debater who said bones and then flesh. Now guys, it is a simple fact of embryology and you can all go and google it
right now.
Do not
notice the interruptions notice.
Guys, let him make his claim please.
Do you not think that he jumps big enough to stick up for himself? Yeah, we don't
think he just needs your help
if you want to come into the bait standard.
So guys, I challenge you now to
Go away and research yourself.
No embryologist argues that bones become flesh not anyone that is respectable.
Except man so
sadly This is why I have to raise my voice I didn't want to but I'm going to have to I'm going to have to raise my voice because of man saw It's a shame because me and he job we're having a nice conversation until mandsaur turned
so i'm not i'm not you all you're doing is delaying the argument. I'm still going to say my point man so
I'm waiting for him to show
a major point haven't finished my point.
Alright guys be quiet please let him finish his point because nothing to hide it. Nothing to hide they let him finish this point. He said there's no references we're gonna roll up. So the fact of the matter is without any prompting from me, he job has said bones then flat. And it is a fact ladies and gentlemen. A fact that you can check for yourself.
bones and flesh grow together to see focus. Okay, grow together they grow at the same time guys guys come through at the same time.
Yes, yes. So when the Quran says the bones grow with flesh, it's wrong for two reasons. Firstly, yeah, there is no ossification at this point is cartilage is not bone. That's false. ossification comes late. That's actually false comes later. And isn't that the bones grow independently from the flesh? By the way, they grow together? Are you interrupting Oh, they grow together. And this is why the Quran is wrong classic stages and he admitted bones then flesh your response. Okay? He said there's no ossification of ossification is when bond forms and this is also referred to as osteogenesis. Okay? He also said bones than flesh. Now let's be very clear. The word bones in Arabic
is Ivonne. Now the words in the A was eyes on the word izombie. In the Arabic language includes cartilage By the way, how do we know that? If you look at the Arabic lexicons, and I can give you the names of them if you like. I'd like you to pull it up. Yeah.
You can you pull it up. Can we see it? Yeah, okay. Yeah, let's pull it up. So for example, I'll tell you I'll read it exactly as it says in the lexicon right. So basically this is what if the manual says in his lexicon
Pharaohs Abadi mentions a failure is a bad is another Arabic lexicon okay.
And this is his he died 817 he
cries please. I'm quoting he just I'm quoting it and quoting it by the words. So there's no one here gonna say get me a reference I'm going to get he says elbow, elbow through Foucault last min. Roxanne you Calloway onfi? Where?
You are awesome.
Yeah, and this isn't what I'll tell you exactly where it is. It is in fatales about this commissionable
volume one page 840. Any any issues so that yes, I have an issue. Okay. Let me finish. But I have an issue now. Now that we have established have we not viewed with references have we not drove which is cartilage, his bone and cartilage can be used? synonymously he said that ossification doesn't happen. That's absolutely absurd. No, I didn't know he did say at this point. You just say that.
Now he's making scientific mistakes. He said there's no reference as well.
Excuse me, excuse me? Excuse me.
God come down because he's saying that there's no reference. I've got a book called the fundamentals of human embryology be quite pleased as the fundamentals of human embryology printed weapons. And yet, I can't tell you page 148 This is a book that is used by biologists in their first or second year. And it's also a book that is used by medical students and others. It's a book called the fundamentals of human embryology. It might be Oxford University Press, I'm not gonna give you like a full bibliography. Now you're being a bit ridiculous. Now, page 148.
All right, page 148. Listen to what it said. Soon after the cartilaginous models of the bones have been established. The myogenic cells which have now become myoblasts aggregate to form muscle masses on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the lens. These muscle masses in the relevant compartments formed the flexors and extensors of the joints. rotator muscles are also formed so that flexes
I'm protonated and annotators are related. And extended R and supernates are related. Now this is very, very clear to me. And it's actually a reference. Let me know
when somebody who's is a lay man, when it comes to science, and as a lay man when it comes to philosophy, and there's a lay man when it comes to Islamic theology, and is a lay man, when it comes to the Arabic language has the audacity to
come down
to commerce. No, no, no, let me finish has the audacity to come in front of me making two false claims, the first of which is that the Quran
has said Egypt. Come on, let me finish. Let me finish.
On the camera, he said the on the camera. And this is at the age of technology. Yeah, he said ossification doesn't happen at this stage. That's false. That is false.
Well, we can rewind, we can rewind it.
ossification does take place by the admission of the authorities. And that's what people are you using any universities all across this country? Number two, no, no. Number two, let me finish. Finish number
number two.
This is why we
why we need to do
that.
But let me just make one more point. And then you can remember to focus on the LIDAR mala is the only interpretation in the Quran, that the fact is chronological or backup meaning is a chronological low. There are two interpretations in the Islamic understanding. One of them is that it is chronological. And the other one is that it's not chronological, and Edna Raja, and hanbali he takes the view that all of it happens in the first 40 days. And he mentions that in his shot of the Hadees of in the I had a company akuna he bought me on me he are buying a oh man madhva aloka sorry, not first.
And then and then because you know, excuse me, hold on, hold on, hold on. This had he says and
finish. Let me finish.
Let me finish all the data. Otherwise, you won't know what Oh, just listen, let me finish you're not finished. Let me finish not finishing, give me
finish.
There's another way of daddy's
Listen, please, come down, please. He said that's another very important. So my feed daddy Camus medallic. This is very important. So he said that in the hadith of Muslims, and
Muslim is visa, which means in that time, listen, it means in that time, it will be like that. So because it's such a delicate missile as Alec, the opinion of the Hon Abdullah and the matter the humble is, is that what happens in 40 days? Why is it there for that there's a difference of opinion along the way.
Not gonna finish.
That's why that's why the different the jurists have different as to when a woman can have an abortion, some say 120 days, some say 40 days. And once you say it all happens within 40 days, based on the heartbeat and the interpretation
of enlargeable humbling
summary summary, in summary, number one, the interpretation of the interpretation of chronology is not consensus. Number two, even if we say is includes the cottage cartilaginous models, and that is what according to this book, which is an authority that all of the doctors are using is actually happening ossification and missal Genesis are happening at the same time. And that means to say that the the cartilaginous models are moving in the way and the Quran says, You have nowhere to
go please now I'm gonna give him his time. No one interrupted.
mentor.
Please, please, everybody. Make sure that you don't interrupt him because whatever he says
This is gonna be refuted and then we're gonna move on to the Bible where he's gonna have nowhere to run. Okay, so, guys, I listened carefully to the book that he quote well I heard was that bones and flesh throw together but if you remembered when I asked him to name the stages he said and you'll see the flashback on our on our picture we're on soco films. He said the bones came before flesh. That's what he said. So he said the bones came before flash. And then he quoted a book that said exactly the opposite.
And he thought that I wouldn't know take
any thought that I wouldn't notice. But I did notice because I have examined the sophistry before and I understand it rudimentary tactic. The idea is to blind you with lots of big sounding words. Let me just let me just clarify. Let me let me just clarify.
In another part of the Quran, so we read 2323 12 to 14,
but in two, five in Surah, two, I have 259. It also says exactly the same. It's towards the end of the verse.
Yeah, so my name is Shiva athma and Kumar. Insha. Allah, Allah right. Let me let me give the English but you won't get what?
Let me give the English. Yeah, that's why you need I'm still making my point. Hey, job. Fine, bro. I'm making my point. Take your time, please. Yeah. Okay. So
we're up to 259. It reads Yep. Yeah, please. There's only if I get to it, john to help you out with that. No, no, I can't find it. Thank you. Just in case of embryology you know, that. Let me let it sit. Now notice he said it's not about embryology.
Yeah. So let's actually look at whether it talks about embryology. Okay. He says this.
And this we have made of you assign for the people. Look at the bones, how we bring them together, and close them with flesh. When this was clearly shown to him. He said, I know that Allah is able to do all thing you read the bills Don't interrupt. You insisted I didn't interrupt. I'm gonna say everything I've got to say you got to listen. So the fact of the matter is in two places, the Quran says bones then flesh, he Job said bones, then flesh, and then quoted a book that said flesh and bones grow together. That's what he did, and he hoped you wouldn't know. Now he also talks about ossification. He also talks about ossification. The reality is, unless he job wants to say that he
is an embryologist. It is clear from every work of embryology. The bones are not immediately ossified. They begin us Cartlidge. The Quran does not mention cartilage. He said, Have you got a problem when we that when he quoted the lexicon? And I said, Yes, I do. But he insisted that he finished all of his many, many points. Are you honestly telling me that Allah doesn't have a word for cartilage when he wants to talk about?
football? That's why do you want to talk to him out? No, no.
He's losing his patient.
He wants Oh, look at the interruption.
I'm sorry. So tell me when you're finished. Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to finish all my points. Like you mentioned a lot. Do I have tried? No, no, no, don't. Don't interrupt. I'm
just stop interrupting, right. So the reality is, and I just challenge you to check me now.
Do bones what is a bone alone is an ossified cartilage.
There is a reason why we have distinct words for cartilage and bone.
And you're you're saying is
inaccurate in his description. Because he can't use a word for cartilage uses one that could mean cartilage and could mean bones. Or could mean the two things together. If he means the two things together, then it's an error because cartilage is not bone. If it could be cartilage or could be bone, then it's an error, because it should be cartilage, not bone. So either way
Ah, the Quran is wrong. No, he said, he said he job even pressed up my memory of how I remembered all your arguments. He said, hey, how dare you a layman in philosophy, a layman in Arabic?
have the audacity to stand in front of me. Do you all remember him saying
he's not the only one with a good memory? Let's just correct a fact. He came and stood in front of me, not the other way around. But secondly, secondly, he is a layman in embryology. He is a layman on this topic, but I'll tell you someone who isn't a layman in embryology.
He's someone who isn't a layman in embryology.
So, someone who isn't a layman in embryology is Dr. P said Meyers, a human biologist from the University of Minnesota, okay. He describes the Karen's understanding of embryology as follows.
vague and fuzzy and basically stealing from Aristotle.
Real embryology says about the Quran dealing know why this is the interesting point. Why does he say the Quran is stealing from Aristotle? Why? Now personally, I think he's wrong. I think they were our doctors at the time who were educated in medicine. But if you listen to Aristotle's words, listen to this. This is quoting from
quoting Aristotle's work on the parts of animals. Aristotle live 350 years before Christ, which makes him 1000 years before Mohammed, what was 337? enlist no 350. And this is what he says stop interrupting.
This is embryology according to Aristotle, listen around about the bones and attach to them by the fibrous bonds grow fleshy parts, for the sake of which the bones exist. Does that sound familiar? bones, then flesh. That was a common understanding at the time of Muhammad. There is nothing miraculous about what the Quran say. And the Quran gets it wrong, like very much. Now it's my turn to this one. But I do think we should time it by the way, because we don't know now you want to time otherwise you think so? I agree. Let's go.
Five minutes each. Can we get a timer, please? And you've got to be willing to show your phone to both of those on request five minutes, but are you willing to show your phone to both of those on request? Okay.
Now, before I
said, five minutes, five minutes, we've got this.
Okay.
Let's read it again. Because I don't think this man has good comprehension skills. He said, No, he doesn't have good comprehension is the problem. We're dealing with someone who can't understand. He said that it said that both of them are forming at the same time. No, it doesn't say that. This is soon after that cartilaginous models of the bone have been established. So first of all, we have cartilaginous models of the bones have been established out. Then it says what the myogenic cells which have now become myoblasts, yes, aggregate to four muscle masses. Now, let me explain what he's saying here is saying that you have cartilage or these cartilaginous models and then you have the
myoblasts which are myogenic cells, which then become myoblast coming on top. Is that why it says Yeah, everybody knows who has done even a little bit of reading and embryology that myoblasts are the cells that are responsible for muscle growth. That is a fact of embryology go to any book of embryology that you like, is responsible for flesh. So he's saying that he's saying at the same time, though, it's not it's saying first the cartilaginous models have been established. And then after that, you have the myogenic cells which are responsible for flesh, coating them exactly as the Quran states, if you want to take the chronological reading. As I said, though, that's not the only
interpretation of the Quran, because there's fat at Taki beja. The fire which comes with like Soma, which is for chronology and for us, as far as suburbia or affair does not necessarily like that focus on the Dharma.
Last night that we have closed the bone with muscle. So that's point number one completely and utterly refuted. He said it said, and this is false is demonstrably false. He said he said at the same time, where is in what I read saying the same time? Can you read that? Understand? Do you understand that myogenic cells are responsible for flesh? Do you understand the ossification as responsible for bones by his head? ossification continues, you know, when it continues until it continues until I don't do it, by the way, correct? Yeah, so it's what's that got to do with our discussion? He said that no, he could have used the one who threw for the West, specifically for
cartilage. That's not necessarily a good description, you know why? Because Have there been any bone that started then that would eliminate so all the word awesome includes cartilage, and bone, whereas the word gold roof is cut cartilage only or not bone, so it would exclude the bone, which would be less weight. Number three, he mentioned. He mentioned Now, you mentioned Aristotle. Aristotle said in his treatises, that a woman
she has menstruation blood contributes to the embryo logical process. I want you to find me one verse of the Quran and Hadith of the Prophet. Well, that is, in fact copied. If you copied from Aristotle, why is he not copying that? Aristotle also said that the baby is formed in its entirety, and then he just gets bigger and bigger. That's completely against the Quran and the Sunnah. How comes Aristotle didn't mention not for the church, where that whereby both of the mixed fluids are that are what the prophet Muhammad selasa let me mention it, if listen to this, the Prophet Muhammad mentioned laser luminol, not equally, that the boy or the child is not from the entire, the entire
fluid, meaning now Why's the chronic picture, chapter number 76, verse number two, not for
me, not 14, I'm charging the battery for john now
that we have made the human being from a combined mixture of fluids, and to test him, and we have made them hearing and seeing. So wait a minute, is saying is mixed. And wait a minute, the prophet said is a part of that mix fluids, not all of it, which is we know it's one set of the man and one set of the woman. There's nothing like that in the Bible at all, my friend, you have no chance. There's nothing like that. In Aristotle's work. I've told my friend, there is nothing like that in gallons work at all, my friend. And there's nothing like that in the Talmud at all. My friend? How did he know this? Where did he get this from? Did he get it from the Bible where it says that human
beings made like cottage cheese?
Verse number six, that the earth is flat and has pillars, and no one. No one, no one.
No one in the patristic period for 300 years. No one I claim now has ever said that the earth is round, based on the biblical narrative. Everyone was a flat earth is john
smith when he died. He's actually Jesus of the Bible.
And others.
If you look at origin of Alexandra, he was a spiritualist and others five of this shows that the Bible has no way of connecting with today's
five minutes. Okay.
So ladies and gentlemen, there was a lot there again, the heat job went on to say, firstly, we need to establish something that even in ancient times, the Greeks knew the world was round. This is not something new. It is an enlightenment myth, that people in the past thought that the world was flat. And I won't take a lecture from Mohammed II job about the shape of the earth. When the Quran says that the earth is stretched out like a carpet. Well, have you ever seen a round topic? Are all carpets lat waynedale stretched out flat so Muhammad has just jumped his Quran under the birth? No, he went on to talk about the fact that the Quran mentions that the child is created from the fluids
of the woman and the fluid of the man. This is an IRA. It is not a fluid. It is an egg. It is a cell. It isn't a fluid. So he is just exposed the Quran for
Another era because as the Quran says, and we'll quote it, and we made that Knuth da, da, da, da, thank you into a clot. Sorry, sorry, here we go. After we made him, the offspring as a note drops of male and female sexual discharge. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I have to tell you that an egg is not a fluid, it is an egg a cell, then you don't know what a fluid is, and he would appear neither does your God.
Firstly, it says a drop of mail Louise who wants to a drop of mail fluid, ladies and gentlemen, contains 1000s of sperms. So the Quran is also wrong there. Because they drop us, what we would consider a drop of sperm has 1000s of the sounds of sperms within it, if not 10s of 1000s but it's only one sperm that creates the the human embryo. Furthermore, furthermore,
this idea of females contributing to females contributing to the genesis of another human being is not unique to the Quran. There were other Greek philosophers who taught embryology who believed exactly the same.
Now, he said, What about what about the idea of the woman's blood contributing to the birth of a human embryo? he objected to the idea of the menstruation blood, and obviously he's right to do so. But the Quran says this. Then we made the note into a clot of coagulated blood. a clot of coagulated blood is not what an embryo is ever. a clot to the conch coagulated blood is dead blood, it is stopping.
Based upon a cut it is stopping, ruptured in stopping bleeding. So the Quran is wrong there. So now we've got in addition to the embryology error, we also have the era that the Quran says the world is flat, like a coffin stretched out, thank you. And that is also in error. Remember, he condemned the Church Fathers for being flat earthers. Karen is a flat earther he describes the world as being stretched out like a carpet. Now, he goes on to talk about the fact that the ossification he quoted his book again, and he's trying to mislead you, because not all quote, Do you honestly believe that bones grow without any skin off flesh. Whereas the photo evidence, there's no such thing as flesh
and bone together, notice the interruption
grows at the same time. That is the conclusion of embryologists and we've got two facts now that the Quran gets wrong, a flatter and embryology. Alright, I want to break the news to everybody. I want to break news to everybody. You know, he's admires the one he quoted as the embryology authority, who said that the Earth was inaccurate, you know, that sorry that the Quran is inaccurate. Remember the one he
he retracted that statement when we could go
on the public record that he retracted that statement one week ago, and he said, in fact, I retract this point. Peace of mind is the person's point number one. Point number two is this. He's the main point he was saying is that the book doesn't say that the cartilaginous models come before the myogenic cells form around them. I've quoted it again and there is a chronological there is a chronological sequence show,
step by step, which completely negates what you're saying. Point number three, there is an interpretation which says both are happening at the same time. So all of these things, you have nothing for them. He then talked about the flat earth. Here's what I say. And it is a challenge to the Christian world, not just you because you're insignificant. You're challenged.
Don't interrupt, don't interrupt.
There is not
One church Father, in the first 300 years of Christianity ever looked at even one verse in the Bible, and concluded that the earth is round. Whereas there are scholars in the first 300 years of Islam, who looked at the call on itself and deduce from that, that the earth is round in the moon either being one of them.
And that is something guys, there hasn't been another one who quotes chapter 39 verse five, you go with Laila Allen the hard way you call it
a sham. So we'll come on call Ron yejide.
Chapter 39 verse five. And listen, this is the quilt comes from the Arabic word cut off, which means ball, be quiet, my friend.
Shut your mouth, my mind?
No.
No, you set about the Bible. They believed in something called metal plate theory. Look Like he said.
That's in the Midrash, which is the exegesis of the Bible. For how many hundreds of days not the exegetical tradition of people like Augustine, when he, when he started mentioning the demand for Thunder to the earth. That's a different situation. Yes. Yeah. But he didn't look at the Bible and say, it was round because of the earth. And if you look at john Walton, who is a Christian scholar, he mentions the circle of the earth, which is mentioned in Isaiah chapter 40, verse 22. And he said, by consensus, this means like a disk on its own, don't ever come to me with this. I have already told you even hasn't even monada the soul of the people and the love of the first 500 years saying
yes is gone because I'm not one touch father says the earth is round because of the Bible respond ob content.
That was brilliant oratory.
Absolutely brilliant.
Well, we all done. By the way, by the way, Allah is not a mouse is not a mouse.
A mouse is not a mouse, mouse.
Ladies and gentlemen, that was a brilliant piece of oratory.
Unfortunately, complete flannel. And the reason why it was complete flannel, ladies and gentlemen, why is because the church fathers, were not trying to argue that you should become Christian, because of science. This is a modernist style of argument notice the interruption,
a modernist style of argumentation. The early church fathers were trying to convince people to become Christian, by using philosophy, because that was the lingua franca of education at that time, and they were good at it. The reality is, in the book of Job, if you want to mine some verse, to quote the idea of the earth being round, in the book of Job, it says, and bless it is he who sits upon the circle of the earth. No, it's in job in job Stop interrupting No, furthermore, Furthermore, he said, Well, we've got all these Muslim scholars who believed that the world is round because of the Quran. Why did they even bother? Pythagoras knew the world was round before Jesus. The Greeks
knew the world was round before Jesus. It wasn't a new thing.
And they didn't need a revelation to do it either. But actually, let's listen to what the Quran say about the shape of the Bible. It says Have We not made everyone say made
the earth as a bag?
bag is word of Quran says. When was the last time you slept on a circle bed? Your sleep on a flop faint Hey job, no to circle back. So yes, Muslim scholars believe that the world was round, but so did the Greek 1000 years before them.
1000 years before the
Quran says that the world is made like a bank. So stop interrupting. So, now coming back to this question about ossification and bones.
So ossification, on bones, basically, Mohammed II job has admitted a few things. Number one, he has admitted that some Muslims do, and he seems to be one of them interpret the verses of the Quran as sequential. So I'm not misrepresenting Islamic beliefs. There are Muslims that argue eight, two, he has admitted that there are alternative words for both cartilage and bones. And I need to remind you, that the reason why we call cartilage cartilage or not bone is because they are not the same thing. They are ossification that went really quick for five minutes. Anyway, fair enough. So in terms of in terms of ossification, Allah could have used the right terms. The reality is, biologists
will tell you that bones and flesh come from the same material, the mesoderm bones and flesh come at the same time from mesoderm. And he didn't like Dr. PS admires he said that he retract today. I'd like to see the reference. I want to see the proof because it's easy to say retract, say I want to see the proof. But it's not just Dr. PS admires that says this. It's also Dr. Joseph Needham, who dimished dismisses Quranic descriptions of embryology, as a cheap ripoff of classical text. And Dr. Joseph meidum, is also an embryologist and he studied the history of embryology. So we have nothing unusual in the Quran. Nothing miraculous in the Quran. The Greeks knew it beforehand. And also the
Quran gets it wrong. And he's talking about patristic fathers.
Alright, guys, let me read out he said his job, the circle of the earth isn't in the book of Isaiah, as I corrected him and told him he doesn't want to believe me. What is that? I look at this. Look at what john Walton. He says this by word, one of the supported texts on this site, he says. So basically,
one of
one of the most common examples given by those who suggests that there is a latent scientific consideration is Isaiah 4022, which posits a spherical Earth, this cannot be sustained, because its terminology indicates a disk not a sphere, a disk, not a sphere, Walton 2009, page 174. And the word used here is hug. Hug. In the end Hebrew language does not mean a sphere, hug in the Hebrew language, by the consensus of those who speak by the consensus of the midrashim by the consensus of Aha, and all those individuals, it means as a district Austria, so tell me now, tell me now, I want to know the people want to know, he wants to know, even this guy wants to know, one verse in the
Bible, which can particularly be interpreted in a way to in any way direct in direct indicate that the redundancy of the earth rather than the flat disk nature of the earth, which was the consensus of the Jewish midrash, and the consensus of all of those who have ever looked at the Bible, and and had a cosmology because of it.
That's the first point. The second point is this. He keeps mentioning the mizo done. I don't think he understands what the measles is. The measles is the flesh that comes over the the cartilaginous models, I've already explained this, you can go back to the references. If you don't like it. There's another interpretation which implies the multi annuity that the bone happening at the same time, no problem. There are two interpretations. Number three, I'm not making the argument that all of this is miraculous.
I've not said that. I believe that the Quran speaks in a way that everybody can understand, from the physicists to the farmer, from the seventh century, to the 21st century man and a woman Hala kohala. Javier, does he not know why he created and he is the old subtle autoware He is the author.
Yes. So
Allah speaks in a way that the Bible does not speak and that people from the very early times, the Christian scholars themselves will making a mockery of the literal reading of the Bible. Look at origin of Alexandria again.
It doesn't matter. He says this, how, how he talks about this, how he says, Listen, he says, How could it possibly have happened literally, either that the devil should have been led Jesus up to a high mountain, or that his fleshly eyes he should have shown all the kingdoms. He's saying, how can you see all the kingdoms when all the nations were not at the foot of the mountain? dying planet Earth?
I'm telling you, now, the front your Bible, stop trying to think you have something on the Quran, where in the Bible Give me one person that ever existed that said that the earth was round because of the words of the Bible. You said, you said job and mentioned. He mentioned the sphere and inventions that
john Walton who is a scholar of Christianity says, this cannot be sustained. Because the word means
is a disk and not as
close my friend. The creative comes from the word which means a ball and not
all from my friend, how dare you come and talk to me about science? When in Genesis chapter five, if you add up all the days together, as have the young eighth creationist, you will come to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years out 6000 years old that way a minute. How do you know that Genesis chapter five has all these lineages from Adam JSON recently? Son Hunter, 30 years 150 years, it all up? Like Noel has done and you have 6000 years, you have the audacity to talk about some some minor thing when it comes to embryology, when your Bible bashing friends in America have museums and institutions, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on the idea that the
universe is 6000 years old? How dare you tell us that the universe is 6000 years old? And that we're all these fossils are conspiracy, and come to me and as the Muslim community, I talk about science. How do you defend yourself against the fact that you have all these fossils, all these facts, and you have your Bible bashing mental man syndrome individuals are believing the universe is 6000 years old, the flat earthers will probably Bible believing flat earthers This is the reality of the situation. Don't ever come here again and talk about science or anything else because it's over. And for more information, go to k by H. Dakota, UK. Go to my
show allometry reply.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Right now your waste of time.
Hey, so where is it?
Right.
So, in terms of church fathers, who believed that the earth was round, he wanted me to show him one. No, no, no, no.
The Bible Stop interrupting. So he wanted me to show him one.
Tennessee's of Alexandria to 76219, Paul calculated that the circumference of the Earth within 50 miles, an St.
No, ladies and gentlemen,
in the book of jobs, in the backup job, one of the oldest books in the Bible, historians credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical Earth in the sixth century BC by Pythagoras, who suggested it, how it was known before him, the round shape of our planet is something that is common knowledge, all the way from the time of Jesus's time to the present. That is why Christopher Columbus went to the Americas
believed that the world was wrong. Ladies and gentlemen,
let's be clear about some
chrystia
never claimed
is a scientific textbook, free from error. That is not a krisztian claim.
So he's judging
I'm saying by a standard he's typing. He's typing back on now he is. So, ladies and gentlemen, please.
So, in terms of in terms of our time, okay, thank you. Thank you. In terms of our time, ladies and gentlemen, great students don't teach or believe that the Bible is perfect. That is a karate claim about the Quran. So you have to judge the Quran, by what the Quran say. And the Bible by what the Bible says. So the Bible says, it is here to teach you about who God is, and how to live. doesn't claim to be perfect, like the Quran.
The Quran Stop interrupting
Joe so when the Quran
stopping,
stop interrupting the time. So when.
So when the Quran describes the earth like a bed, put your hand up, if you think of badges around ball go and put your hand up.
Nobody
describes the earth like a bit more you're right to say that the Quran is in error. And if the Quran is in error, according to the Quran, not me. It's not from God
to defend the Bible, in biblical terms, not in Quranic terms. Two minutes left in colonial times, no, you took time away last time in terms of in terms of the Quran, it states bucks that are wrong. And I can say according to the Quran, that it is false. According to the Bible, we do not make the claims about our Bible. Muslims make about that Quran. So him coming here by saying Don't come here and say this and say that trying to act like the macho man somehow this is impressive. As if somehow they say same curses. Does not escape the errors in
no 121 minutes 20.
Time away last
time away. Give him a limited
time. Give him another minute.
another minute showing Sora 4310
in any doubt about what the Quran said previous
Surah 4310 it says this
who made you who made for you the earth like a bird
and as made for you roads there in order to find your way like a bed believes the earth is flat but yonder.
Muslims don't but the Quran does.
Very good. Oregon is not a church father.
to you
is not a church
it's a step down from a church father. So he lied to you floated Oregon and we Christians don't follow the church fathers. Comments on science. Alright. Are you are you with that time? Yes. Is everyone happy with the time Yeah.
Let me tell you something this first I he keeps bringing this lm Nigel you logged on we had this thing about bed he kept saying bed bed bed get focused he's not saying the word bed. There was only me had that means cradle. So for example, when mariology salaam Maryam when she was
when she was talking about Jesus he she mentioned that term he that met when he was in the met this obeah which means what cradle now really when a woman does a baby she trade those are like like like in a shaped way like that. that's point number one. Point number two. The shape was not wise intended here. That what was intended in an unnatural
was the comfort was the and how do we know that? Allah says in chapter number 67 of the Quran por la dee da
Let them
come through FEMA keeping our kulula state that he is the one who had made the US subservient for you. So walk around, it's monoket, literally meaning shoulders. What are you going to say? That means? It means like the answer is like boxes now? No, it means that the mountains are referred to in that says, Go in these areas, but you don't understand imagery. The point of the matter is this before the scientific revolution, the interpretation of the call on the indicated or tendency of the earth, that is nowhere to be afforded to us in the Bible. I didn't say any church Father, I actually mentioned to him in his, in his exit Jesus against the mannequins augustan. He mentioned the shape
of the Earth is wrong. You don't need Google for that. I can tell you myself, but he doesn't get into the church. I know he didn't speak that. But I'm not saying my argument. I think he's misunderstood. It was not who no church father believes that yours is wrong. I'm saying no, I said that they use the Bible to indicate what the Bible was saying. JOHN Walton, he mentions in chapter 14, verse 22, the word hog means a disk that cannot be used. It's the closest thing we have by cannot be used to indicate their tendency. He says, We don't have to have, we don't have to have. He doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy. By the way, he might come from a more Catholic background, I
don't know. But definitely a large portion of the Christian community. Probably all of those thoughts. Believe in biblical inerrancy, which is the idea that the Bible is flawless. He is hermetic and is believed, according to those know he is, according to evangelicals, who believe in biblical inerrancy, he would be seen as a heretic he knows that. Now. Moreover, here's that here's the point, when you first open the Bible, and I say this again, when you the first thing you see in the Bible is contradiction. Let me show
that you find in a Genesis chapter one, the luminaries were created through them, mystical truths may be indicated. He is saying, therefore, that he has to spiritualize and allegorize the verses of the Bible, in order to keep away from the biblical internal contradictions. It's not just the external one by an internal one. How do we know that? Because vegetation is mentioned as as happening on the fourth day in Genesis chapter one. But when you look at Genesis chapter number two, verse number six, and said that no plant has sprung up yet, so much so that even scholars are saying this is a contradiction. How could you have dead vegetation in the fourth day in Genesis one, and
then in the end, in Genesis two, six, it says no plan has gone up yet. So why the plants dead? Or whether the plants not dead? That's the question, what they might die. How can you have day and night without the sudden you're talking nonsense? How dare you come up with?
How dare you our clowns, you're coming to us are talking about
a 6000 year old University, which isn't even mentioned. He didn't even refute that he can't defend himself. He can't defend himself. We had one bullet in the gun, he went straight. Now. He's, he can't defend himself. He's on. He's released. I'm in the mount. I'm snapping. I'm fighting. He knows what I'm talking about as MMA fighter one day, maybe he can challenge me.
No problem using your time and so on and so forth. And I said, I say this to you today. And I say to you with all my vigor and all the confidence he has no answers to the redundancy problem 6000 year problem to channel contradiction problem, and I
so, it's always true that if you give a man like he jumped enough rope, he'll hang himself. And that is exactly what he just did. Exactly what he chose stays this point. Next, he admitted But
father believed that the earth was round. He just spent
arguing that no church father believed that the earth was round from the Bible, but then admits that oak Gustin dead Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gents
Welcome to notice the interruption again.
interruption post my time. Was this time please pause this time. Yeah, right.
Okay, you're done. Okay. Are you ready?
Are you done?
from the Bible?
Okay, so, oh, Gustin, himself and Oregon, whom he quotes, both interpret Genesis allegorically. Not is the Orthodox historical use of Genesis. It's only fundamentalists in the 20th century.
That shouted and screamed about a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is not how the Christian fathers use Genesis. So he just shot his entire argument dead, because he evidenced the fact that the historical use of Genesis is allegorical and non literal, not literal. So he's attacking the Bible based upon electoral reading, when he admits that the Church Fathers don't do that. And then he says, show me that church fathers that do X, Y, and Zed, but glory to God, the Holy Spirit that inspired Genesis was smarter than Oregon, and apparently smarter than he job. Because the reality is he job in his very brief summary of physics, that the sun is a collapsing gas cloud.
Before he makes the point of nuclear fission, of driving atoms together, elements together to form bigger elements, it gives off light, it gives off radiation. If you were stood there, before the sun became a sun and entered into nuclear fission, you wouldn't be able to detect Tate's light, and you would be able to detect it. So actually, given this fact, it is true that there would have been light in the infrared spectrum before there was light from a sun that would have come later. Correct spectrum, the infrared spectrum? Are you honestly telling me are you so ignorant of physics, that you think because Sun reaches nuclear vision before it gives off heat? Go back and pick up your GCSE
study books. You're laughing at your own ignorance, no. infrared radiation, ladies and gentlemen, would have been the very source of
do not believe that Genesis needs to be taken literally if you want to. I don't believe that. The Church Fathers don't believe that. So he's attacking the Bible, based upon a 20th century belief that comes from America, not the historical belief of the church. He's underneath his own arguments, but he believes that the Quran is perfect. The Quran describes the earth as a bed. Do you believe the earth is a bed? But more than this, here's another error in the Quran.
until we reach the setting place of the sun, he founded setting in a fraying of black, muddy water.
If you believe that the sun sets in a puddle of mud, who believes?
No even
so
we don't need to square the Bible we.
But on the other hand, the Quran is in error, even though it claims not to be. So you can stand there and do your macho routine. And try to be the bigger man. But intellectually he job you're beaten in your criticism of my faith and the defense of your own.
Ready.
Okay, listen to this, listen to this. Sorry.
Sorry.
Just that. He says that. He's trying to portray that the typical interpretation of the biblical corpus from an ecclesiastical patristic perspective, the church fathers was an allegorized understanding, and there is no further thing away from the truth, as understood by RC Hansen, unknown scholar
who, who wrote cause of the Bible, but despite it, he was an Aristotelian, and he came to that conclusion. My my challenge to him was to find someone who uses the Bible and exigence it to have a spherical Earth eternity of the earth perspective. Number two, number three, he said
That he tries to imply that origin story that Augustine, he had the approach of origin of Alexandria, which was an anomalous and aberrational approach in the exegetical method of the ecumenical church fathers, when actually the truth of the matter is, he actually didn't even know that, that Augustine, who is a fifth century scholar, actually named his extra Jesus on a literal interpretation of the Bible. He had to, he had one called against the mannequins, and he had one coat on the literal interpretation of the Bible. So this guy doesn't even know he's on books. I know more than him on his own books. Now listen to this, this is gonna be a good night argument. I
promise you today, he will go to sleep.
He won't go.
Just like I'm showing you. The times in the ring. I'm gonna say this to you once and I'm gonna say to you very clearly, one time census was just apologist. He came to
us origin of Alexandria, what you say how can you have a God that died on the cross?
You know how you responded?
Do you know how he responded?
He responded.
Okay, by start coding, and download my PDF on the truth on Islamic, you'll find all the references that he basically
said all cannot say that all of the events relating to the crucial to the crucifixion are true. And Excuse me, can you stop?
General of Alexandria when he was asked by celsus. And this is referenced in my article on cable, he called it UK he was asked, What do you say of the crucifixion? What do you say of Jesus dying on the cross? He said, it should not be seen as literal. In other words, the same spiritualizing allegorical understanding that he employed with Genesis he employed with the crucifixion. So if you want to have your cake, you can't eat it. Because the reality of the situation, if you're saying an allegory, you might as well say,
Sorry, if you want to use the hermeneutical principles of others.
You want to honor guys, Genesis modifies the crucifixion, just as the origin allegorized it just as the metaphor is dead? Why did you want why Java? What's your principle? What's your principle? volatilization? Why is your hermeneutical principle? How can you guys want to know why? On what basis Who gave you the authority to allegorize Genesis and no allegorize? What? the crucifixion, origin of Alexandria, one probed by Sal says he lies the crucifixion, meaning your central tenants, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, and so on and so forth. All of that can be allegorize. And he says, allegorize, what remains of Christianity, it's all fallen apart. It's all
gone, and becomes a myth. Just like Hinduism, it becomes like the Greek mythology, it becomes like anything else. So there you have it. If you want to say it's allegorize then you must allied your eyes, you must allegorized the crucial function, because there is no authority that you may be granted. There is no authority that you hermeneutical authority
authority that you have.
And that's why it's done. And that's why you're finished.
Next year.
Should we do this?
Okay, there's this
lesson. No,
no, no, no.
You don't know.
The parameters of science?
No, you start
up get the job. The job. You laid out the parameters of science first, remember about the you laid out your parameters. He talked about the paradigm So you started he wanted to lie.
So
this is the last one.
Right now I'm speaking last. This is the last
last round. No, no. This is the last
finish.
Are you ready? Right, guys? Ladies and gentlemen, listen carefully to the double standards that he is asking you to work to. He is saying to you that you have to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why? Because of his quotes of origin. Now, he didn't actually quote, origin. He just threw his name into some statements. The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, origin is not a church.
So he's quoting from source. origin is called an ecclesiastical writer. No, don't take state job.
Pay attention.
Ladies and gentlemen, we Christians are not permitted to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and Toto. We don't do that. Our church fathers didn't do it. He's admitted as much. He said his March. He said that Oh, Gustin believed in around. He said that. So we Christians don't need to defend every statement of the Bible as if it was literally true.
No, he's said that the description the origin used, was literal, was allegorical about the crucifixion. I know origins writings, I read origins writings, and he says that there are layers of interpretation to the Scripture, that include the electrode and go beyond the literal and he was talking about the metaphorical symbolism that we can pull from the crucifixion. He was not denying the historical event of the crucifixion, who just tried to mislead you.
The Quran
has made a note of factually false statements. And it doesn't matter. With what pomposity Hey, job prances around in this little theater of hours, flexing his muscles, chasing his muscles and trying to talk about beating people up intellectually. The reality is that his Quran has finished his religion because his religion, his Quran, says if it was from any other than Allah, I would find I errors therein he would find contradiction.
The Quran says bones became flesh. This contradicts embryology. The Quran says that the earth is flat. This contradicts our study of the world which is clearly spherical.
The Quran states that the sun sets in a puddle of mud,
puddle of mud,
and it clearly doesn't set anywhere on Earth. I have found errors in the Quran. And the only way that you get around him his walk is by saying, Oh well, Muslim scholars knew better than that Quran. I agree. but so did the Greeks before Jesus know better than the Quran? He said, Well, your church fathers didn't believe in the earth as being known from the Bible. But then he showed that those Church Fathers do believe in the circle of the earth. Do you honestly believe that they will uphold the idea of the circle of the earth in one hand? And then, as Christians say that it contradicts the Bible? Of course they wouldn't. Why do they not see a contradiction? Because as the Church Fathers
demonstrate consistently, the reading of the Bible is not meant to be a scientific text. It does not have to be read that way, nor does it have to be defended that way. And so his criticism of the Bible is misplaced, because it is not what we Christians believe that he believes that every utterance of the Quran is true. And we have we have demonstrated you
There are utterances of the Quran that are false. How many times does the Quran have to be wrong time? How many times does the Quran
finish on this point? How many times does the Quran have to be wrong? Before we say it is wrong? once, twice, three times.
Today, only one will do. The reality is bumper stickers you are here job.
As you all he job. You are intellectually scuppered because you are trying to defend a book that makes indefensible claims about Excel.
Talking to you.
No, no, no. We said that we were finishing on this tool. That's why let me do what I need to do one more. Fair enough, one more as
much
as the same job one.
time to time. He'll show you the five minute latency the five minutes.
All right. Now it's very important to find time. Okay. It's important to note here the three examples he gave number one the embryology which we spoke about in detail, we said that there are two readings. One of them implies Cymbalta annuity and the other one doesn't. One of them is Khan ology. And even on the one that talks about chronology, we talked about it with references. The fact that including bones or in Arabic language is the content legit models, which are referred to in articles, which according to Pharaoh's Abadi, he mentioned that that's included in both so there's no issue number two, he talks about them as being a mess, the Earth is being a mess. And we said
that that was used in the context of Jesus being a baby boy in the cradle of his mother, it doesn't signify shape. By talks about function. The function of the Earth is facilitated for the human being. It's expansive, it's meant to be from the anthropocentric phenomenological perspective, number three, which he then talked about, the muddy, muddy hodeida when connected to the muddy spring, now, he said for watch,
he saw it, he he observed it, he found it going into
a muddy spring, this same terminology is mentioned is
number
28. When the hood when the bird says in new a gentleman on
the right our coma yesterday, Nana Sham semen, Daniela, this is mentioned about when the hood or the bird saw the woman. So it's otherwise talking about from the perspective of the birth. So here we're gonna talk about
something which is number two, number three. So we talked about all three points. He then talked about origin of Alexandria, he was right, that he is seen as an ecclesiastic church father, ecclesiastical writer, and the Catholic Church.
Church, the Catholic Church, I've not put him as a church father. That's true. That's true. That is true to say that because of something called the origin crisis that happened after his death, in fact, in the fourth century, or the fifth century. So having said that, now, it doesn't matter, because he actually agrees with origins hermeneutical method. In fact, all of the other church fathers were almost no exception, except for the Alexandria school didn't have the approach the origin of Alexandra and fillo and others had. So number three, now we have to ask this is he so I didn't reference it. So let me reference it right now. This is why he says
he was the crucifix. He says the events
that have been recorded to Jesus do not possess the full view, the truth, in May, in the middle of an
event is shown to be a symbol of something else, by by those who read the Scripture more intelligently. This is in his, his book SLCC
chapter two verse number 69 is also mentioned k by hex code at UK and go to the article, dive right on it for all the references. Having said this now, the issue is he's admitted himself that the Bible is not free from error. And the Quran is making the point that you can't say the book is from God if is not from if it's not free from error. Now you have a decision to make, if you want, if you want to follow a book that is erroneous by the admission of this man, or a book, which at least says it's as I said, necessary, not even a sufficient condition. We used to believe in a book, which has no areas in order for it to be from God. He doesn't uphold the standard of biblical inerrancy
because he knows
That's an impossible standard for the, for the Bible to maintain. And he admits candidly that the Bible is erroneous. And I may add, he didn't have anything that I said. He didn't talk about the contradictions, the internal contradictions of the Bible that in origins, understanding and other peoples, that even the Midrash him they were confused. Why is it that it's mentioned that the luminaires were created on the fourth day? That the sun and the moon sorry that they were created on the first day? Why is it? How could you have from a scientific perspective, the plantations created on the third day, and the sun created on the fourth? What kind of photosynthesis will take place?
Now? How can you have plantation on the third on the third day on Genesis chapter one, and in Genesis chapter two, verse six.
So here, you have contradictions within the text, you have contradictions outside the text so contradictory is that even the ecclesiastic judge writes is like the origin of Alexandria
admits it. And that's why you have to allegorize that boy, if you do that, then you must allegorize other things that he also allegorize, in which case you're in the hermeneutics, and it becomes a mythological tale that is no different from Greek myth, or Hindu or anything else. If we start analyzing one thing with no precedent, or at least operational precedent, then we must analyze anything we want. And that is the situation he finds himself. Okay. Right. Let me reply to this. Because again, and again and
again, and again and again, he job here creates a false dichotomy. He tries to tell you that you have to believe in Genesis literally, the early church fathers don't teach a literal interpretation of Genesis. So we don't need to defend the Bible, literally. And so these problems that he's talking about are not there. Because it's dependent upon how we interpret them. Don't interrupt someone who don't turn up the job who doesn't do it, because
who doesn't?
know we didn't do this job. Don't you do this tactic all the time? Why don't you do this tactic all the time, is just a dominating tactic. Control yourself. You're a trained fighter for crying out loud. Ready? You're ready. Ready? So the fact of the matter is the church fathers.
Brother, Joe, please, please don't
put 10 seconds back onto my
doctor trying to do this tactically job, he's cheating.
So we'll try again. So the Church Fathers don't teach a literal interpretation of Genesis. So he's attacking Genesis, based upon the fact Well, how could the sun be there before plans, it contradicts science. When the book of Genesis was revealed, it wasn't revealed as a science lesson to the Hebrew Israelites. It was revealed as a theological lesson to the Hebrew Israelites. He was teaching the Hebrew Israelites that there is no god but one God, and He is the God of the stars, the plants, the rivers, the sea, Lion, the birds, the things that draw mankind. So that's what Genesis is really teaching. And that is how the early church fathers interpreted Genesis. No, we Christians, he said,
I teach that the Bible is in error. No, I don't. I teach that every word of the Bible is true. properly understood, and properly understood, is not interpreting every word literally. And that is substantiated by the earliest strata of my writers, the church fathers, and he said it was just honor Jean. No, it wasn't a good stain. Well, I also did, and Augustine wasn't from the alexandrian School. He was birthed in Carthage. So again and again and again
and have to be corrected. And he's working on the 99 one rule that 99 people will not check what he say.
Again,
yep.
Right. So the Quran says
the Quran makes the statements that the earth is a bed. Have you seen a spherical bat, lay
stretched hours a carpet? Have you seen this circle carpet lately?
These things are errors in the Quran. No is clean. What will he do? He will argue that these should be interpreted wrong this time allegorically
play? That's what he will say no.
Because if we interpret the Quran literally, it's false.
If we use allegorical defense in the Bible, he says, Oh, you can't do that. You're admitting that he?
No, no, he misquoted origin again. He misquoted origin again. misquoting means you take part of the text out of the text. I have origins books. Origin believes in the actual crucifixion of Jesus. I know he does. I read it with my own eyes. And I will bring those books. And we'll debate whether origin believes that Jesus was really crucified next week, and I'll show you to be a liar. Okay. Are you up for that?
Let me finish, let me finish. Let me finish, because Arjun does believe in electoral crucifixion. But he also believes that the imagery of the crucifixion is so full of symbolism. You can pull meanings beyond the liquor role. And that's really what origin believes. So he learned about origins. He lied about the church fathers. He lied about historical interpretation of the Bible. He lied about the way that we read in the Bible today. And he also lied to defend these Quran
quoting embryology books to say that bones flow without flesh.
Seven seconds.
Are you up for that debate next week about whether origin?
I know I don't say that. Oh,
okay, stop now. Yeah. So yeah, well done. You actually do have some knowledge is good, because what we came to origin, according to Catholic canon, is definitely I know, that's the case that they didn't put him into limit didn't put the origin classes. So that's well done. But you did say to everybody was a church.
You knew that? Why did you like to make them explain? That makes me explain to me why every Christian is a Catholic, at what I think you I didn't know you're a Catholic. I'm not a Catholic. Alright, but I think you lay maybe lean in that direction. The point of the matter is the precepts you believe in will not be universally believed in by all Christians, and you accept that, right.
So for example, today, you argued against biblical inerrancy. And you know that that's one of the Keystone belief systems of evangelical Christians. Okay, so let me reply to that. Mohammed, you're gonna be really embarrassed now. Because we have you multiple times on camera and say one second thing to all crowd. Yeah. The origin was a church father, just admit a camera that you knew wasn't. So you lied to this woman?
Let's say that he wasn't a truck. He isn't. ecclesiastical. Right. Right. He's an ecclesiastical writer, according to the Catholic understanding all of them. Now, I understand that is no problem, because the origin of while says this, while says is irrelevant, because what I'm saying is in the patristic, period, when we say patristic period here we're talking about he falls within that, that time, and a lot of a lot of Catholic scholars. And by the way, the former Pope, I think Pope Benedict, he believed that he should have been a church father, many are in Catholicism are actually saying that origin of Alexandria should be seen as a church while I'm really sympathetic towards
you. Yeah, fair enough. I like it. That's what I'm saying. So whether that is something that the Catholic Church thinks we're not definitely origin of Alexandria in terms of his allegorical understanding, here's my point. The issue that I was trying to say was that it's a hermeneutical principle. Yes, I'm not saying that he didn't, or he couldn't read him to believe in a actual accuracy fiction or an actual resurrection. Thank you. Artie Hansen, when he I'm not sure. Gen. RT Anthony
Johnson is one of the biggest Christian scholars of the last 100 years, you should know who he is he what he writes against Origen of Alexandria. What he says is because one of the things that origin does, he allegorize is the story of the four judges. Okay. And that's because of his his genocidal nature and so on.
So what I'm saying is the question that Aussie Hansen RPC Hanson, he puts forward is that what what hermeneutical principle Are you using
To allegorize. And that's basically it's a bit. It's a bit slapdash. We don't know. Like, why is he doing this? When you set up? Well, Dustin, that sometimes he does. I sympathize with some of what you said, because what you said is, although Yes, he wrote too, by the way, he wrote two extra Jesus's on Genesis, he wrote one called against the mannequins, and the other one is a literal interpretation of Genesis. And he argues again,
there's different, here's what I will say he literally argues against. I know, I know, I know what you refer. I've read this, by the way. I know, you know, one talk I know you're talking about. He doesn't, despite the fact that he calls it a literal interpretation. He doesn't. He doesn't have a consistent literal interpretation. I agree with Thank you. Yeah, but he's so but he is contra distinctive to someone like Origen of Alexandria. Yes, of course. Yes. The origin of Alexandria has completely in terms of the spectrum of oligomerization origin would fit on the like, far right, if we're to call it that. Would you agree with them, that they that there's definitely there's
definitely differences between aubusson and origin, but the point, the point is alexandrian school full weight, like in terms of if this is literal, and this is allegorical, the Alexandria is cooler here. And somewhere in the middle. The point is, right, what we what we've seen, and the thing is, you've just, you've admitted it all on camera, is that when the big crowd was around us, you were saying one thing. Now the debates over not saying something out loud, I'm saying, I'm saying in front of the crowd.
I want to make
academic honestly,
if you want to be academically honest, yeah. What you shouldn't be saying is the origin doesn't believe in an actual person. I'm not saying no. Which is what you did.
Let me clarify. Let me clarify. Let me clarify. What he's because this is a good point. Yeah. Whether origin believed, and it'll debate you next myth.
I don't need to debate.
Is Blackboard the question of the poor believing?
Right? None of what you know that there was a discussion about, do you know about there are discussions and
I find my one man's heretic is another man's. One man's, you know, heterodox is another man's orthodox Imam Bukhari being a perfect example. Yeah, exactly.
All of them. Yeah, he's one man's. He's our orthodox boy. They're the ones who did a deviant in his own time, exactly that when we're doing when we're doing the study of history, we have to try and be objective about these things. So what I'm saying is, on this point of origin, Alexandria, my point wasn't that he might have rejected the crucifixion outright as a literal thing. I'm saying, like you said, he was still not sure, right. It's just, he's just done everything.
You know,
one thing is what I quoted when celsus came to him, was that when he was, and this is, this is my, let me make it very clear what my postulation is. Okay. I don't want you to straw man, because you have a tendency. In this discussion today. I said, find someone who looked at the Bible. And then you said, that you forgot about the second point of what I said, they just went with the first one, I want you to understand my argument. So you can, but if you want to develop Christian products, which are strong and gracious, you have to know my argument first, right? No, no. What? What? So listen carefully to what the argument is. The argument is not the origin of Alexandria. allegorize
is everything. Although you might not believe in the resurrection of a fiction. What I say is what seems to be apparent from his works. And I've talked about on first principles, the Butterworth translation, I have the post Beatles. Yeah. Look at the back of the book, because it's like an appendix section.
If you look at that, you'll find that his approach seems to be where something is contradictory,
or seemingly contradictory. He allegorize. So what I'm saying is, he done that with Genesis, and then he done that again with the crucifixion. Because when celsus came to origin of Alexandria, incomplete, would you even come to me, sort of come together and have a discussion and now you're being a bit ridiculous now, when when they spoke to each other, like me, and you're speaking to each other right now, right? When they spoke to each other celsus is what a Christian, you know. So when he was he was doing what I'm doing with you right now. He's debating. So Origen was expected to provide an apologetic response when he did he allegorized. So what I'm saying is when something
seems inconsistent, the allegorize is all I'm saying. And so therefore, from our paradigm, we're saying there shouldn't be any inconsistency inconsistency is anyway, even. Here's what we're saying. Yeah, I know, I know what you're saying. Because what you've just met them. My principle is accurate, because I said that you've got to judge the Quran from within an Islamic paradigm. And you've got to judge the Bible from within a Christian paradigm. And the historical Christian paradigm is not based on
literal primer fascia interpretation, that is the historical, continuous use of Scripture from the church fathers to the present. Church Fathers today are still doing the same thing one second. You you believe that the Quran is inherent in all of experiments, but you never addressed the flow when you didn't address it. You said you said it was from the perspective of the people. So kind of the same kind of argument. It's not a flat earth.
Yeah, but one second, one second, but that that that statement that you've made about from the perspective of the boats, isn't coming from the Quran, that is coming from you as an apologist, okay, defending what the Quran was plainly saying.
Because what you've just said, what you've just fell into is the genetic fallacy if I was offering an apologetic reply or not, is irrelevant. Most of your church fathers, like Justin Martyr was an apologist doesn't mean just because he's doing that, that what he's saying is wrong. So you're better than that, to make these kinds of interrogations, I want to say is, in terms of the first book titled The anthropological human phenomenological perspective, that's very clear that that is what is intended, you know, that there's two recipients of the human beings. And
so it's clearly it's going to be from a human perspective, it's not going to be from a transcendental godly perspective that he got can see every little thing. That's not what it's meant to be, it's meant to be. Another thing is the point of origin of
the hermeneutical principle is problematic. Because if you say the question is, is the question I asked, is too many people that I'm sure you respect, who are Christian scholars, and
I said, what, when? Where can where do we decide to stop allegorize and saw allegorized?
Now the hermeneutical principle, where do we decide this is where it starts? This is where what I'm saying is, by the way, you said that I said that? The Quran is allegorize I allegorize it? No, I don't allegorize anything. I want to refer to another
point. So let me reply to that. He said that I was guilty of a genetic fallacy. And then you said that Ignatius was an apologist?
Justin Martyr was also a bishop. Yeah. Okay. Are you? Are you the equivalent of a bishop? Are you like a no lover?
Because because the thing is, you're seeing this as an apologist. Right. And you're saying this, but but you're not an alumna.
Right. So here's the thing. Here's the elements of thinking.
In terms of in terms of this primer, posse of statements of the Quran, there are many that simply contradict reality. And the only way you can get around that the only way that you want, yes, the only way that you can get around is to make the currency things on doesn't say no, but what is, which is what can I say? All the Way, way, way, way, all the way through this discussion. So that was the first point. The second point, unfortunately, this guy started screaming in my ear, so I'm not sure I remember what you're saying, Oh, yeah. Where does the allegorical start and stop?
Now that is done within the Council of the church fathers. So what you do which origin is exactly, exactly for your entire argument was built on someone that church Bob, let me finish. It is the it is the full scope of the teaching of the Church Fathers. Everybody's kind of like, it's kind of think of them like a shooter. Think of them like a council. You compare all their writings together, and where they weren't sort of focusing on?
No, no, no, no. I'm talking about reading the Church Fathers as a whole. And where they come to a consensus, this is literal, this is metaphorical. It falls within a spectrum. And it's the Church Fathers themselves in the reading of them whole, that decides for us what is and what isn't, and they'll always be some will fall out of the lines this way and fall out on the lines that way. What what I'm saying to you is that the Islamic perspective, like for example, in the mind is
what we are, we are not trying, why I quote, custom authorities from the fourth century, is to show you that the understanding of people who are not influenced by modern discourses, was not put in it couldn't have been because it's we're talking about someone for centuries. So for example, in the case of the round Earth, I called him the mother. Right? So who is one of the he's one of the students without much humbling. So he's always talking about t 50, or something, right? So he is a literalist, if anything, he will be the equivalent of I don't know, like, I don't know, literalist. Maybe a biblical fundamentalist. Yeah, maybe like that. Right. So he's that sort of where you put it
from that perspective. What I'm saying is, so therefore, he couldn't have like, for instance, you know, the issue of the earth, sorry, the sun. There's one shot reading of, if not best, was a companion of the prophet who, who put on top of the verses of chapter number 36, verse number 40.
washrooms
are delicate.
The son wants to of course, he reads them suited to the Lamaze a cappella. Because he is, he is like Pepsi and his oxygen, the sun runs without a place of setting. So he's now into executing this man was, was praised by the prophet himself. He was praised, he was told, it's unlikely that he's going to be trying to make the client say something, it doesn't say it yourself. You know that there are Hadees where Mohammed repeats the claim that the unsets in a puddle of mud, those have decided the Quran goes Hades, a weak person.
The hustle not know what this is. This is the point.
I believe the hustle and I've seen this.
Talk to your Islamic scholars. I just sent a one second one second. All I see is how Muslim scholars calling. Some Muslim scholars call it Hassan. You're obviously quoting some scholars say
one second. Give it to you.
Thank you, I'm not lying. Thank you. I'm so my point is so my point is there are Hadees that are her son. Right. And just for those that don't know why some sort of the difference between life and life is weak. Yes. And then you have another grade which is right above it,
which is Hasson because of another another. So there may be two we call these dividers. Yeah. And then
depending on what scholar tell him is he wrote Gemma tamila masking is what is
referred to as good, good. It's not authentic. Okay, I know I know. And then there's a level of of saying, Yeah, so my point is that there are there are Hadeeth na Hassan, I've seen him label Hassan.
Right, I'm not in the I'm not in the habit of lying about these things, which I know you'll get blown up if you do, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to be clear about support. So what we've got is her deeds that are considered her son by some scholars. And that takes us into a whole other problem about how these were Mohammed repeats the claim that the sun sets in a puddle of mud, and now he's outside of the Quran. So it's clear that there is evidence that early Muslims believe that their prophet believed that the sunset in hell but the thing is, if that was true, we should see that the early Exodus like poverty
is not the only way he's like somewhere in the eighth century.
And those literal lists, they should have taken that view because they didn't really care about, for instance, a court
scholar, he urges you to just slap because he used the Quran talk.
Right? So he says, For example, metal of you know what he didn't use what you use? Did you use the
I've got all the ones, I've got to find the ones with a copy. That one is not a good one to use, because it's not the one that Islamic scholars you URL. Well, looks alright, I'll tell you which one Yeah, tell me the best one. And I'll come back. And
I What I'm saying is no, no, no, no. I'm curious now.
Chapter 13 verse two, Chapter 13.
He doesn't use
this as a weekend what you were saying was kind of weak. Yeah. You mentioned middle of the stretch the earth. Yeah, he's a stretched it that indicates the flat the flatness of it. Right? Right. So what I'm saying is that these scholars, they didn't care about scientific like, what weren't listening were apologists for whatever I'm listening, he wasn't gonna give a damn like that. So as to be would mentioned this kind of.
So what I'm saying is,
on the literal interpretation, there are two interpretations. There's one which says is wrong, the one nothing is flat. So we agree that not that there are scholars that don't use literal interpretation.
So there are scholars in Islam that are not using literally one naturalistic phenomenon.
So all all Muslim scholars
on the metaphysics stuff, practically all of them. Okay, so we're talking about the ashari school, school and the metro Ed school and the Montessori School. Yeah. So even someone like us,
who was a Moto Z, like he would, he would see all of those things as
the only ones you didn't want the philosopher,
philosopher,
the philosopher, but they were they were not then like, as
a philosopher, like even seen
for RBL kindy. Yeah, they did it. So for example.
They didn't believe in even the day of judgment was going to be physical. So I mean,
day Hey, john, it would be nice to me you to sit down in a place without the crowds. Yes, you know, and to have a proper conversation. As I mentioned, I'm much preferred this than the shouting matches, to be honest. I can do as you know, I can do shouting matches, all
right, but but ultimately, it just becomes too confrontational. This kind of discourse was good. What I'm gonna leave you because you've got
One question for you, though.
Curious? What let me make one point.
What you're going to see is in the course of our comm conversation, you undid your arguments against Christian faith. Well, people will make the wrong judge. Yeah, of course. But I I think that in the course of our calm conversation, yeah, you actually undermined all the arguments you made? I don't think so. I think I just clarified what I thought was.
Right. Okay. What was your question? My question was this, you know, you stated that you stated that the church fathers, yeah.
Tell me if he's gonna say it like this. No problem. What you say that the church
that day had this allegorized understanding of for example, they didn't expect gender they didn't exegete Genesis in a literal way. Yeah. So who are you referring to him particularly Augustine, he would be a perfect example. He actually draws out all of the if you take it literally all of the obvious primer fussier contradictions in one book, I'll have to look it up. Because there's two that I've read. I'll tell you, I've read
this to operate against the mannequins, and I've read anything interpretation, by the way, and literal interpretation is going to be hard for you to access. It's not easily you can't get on PDF. I had to add to go around to get that.
Ready.
Here's my conclusion.
I don't think he does actually. allegorize. August in August in the church fathers use allegory
is a most allegory is the most consistent use of scripture in the church is fine, but what I'm saying is we're talking about for example, Genesis narrative, right? Yeah. No, when you say, the Old Testament, they do it throughout the entirety of the Old Testament. Yeah, no, but what I'm saying is in the New Testament, Augustine, when I read his books, when I read his ex Jesus, he doesn't seem to allegorize it at all. There's no indication of that. They my reading of Augustine, he definitely he refused
to go too far. Yes, but he definitely argues against the idea. Can I tell you what it says? It definitely argues against the idea of reading Genesis chapter one and chapter two. And literally, he basically points out, literally, they contradict one argument that you were making. Yes. So you were insisting upon a reading that is alien to Christianity. Augustine does say that he problematizes it, but he doesn't say therefore we should. allegorize Okay, well, we'll we'll have to look it up.
But one thing is, there's an argue, let me let me Can I just tell you, I read what you think. Yeah. I read john precisamos. Yeah, his name.
He had an a, an extra Jesus of Genesis. Origin had an exegesis of Genesis. Augustine has an excuse. Not all of them. Yeah. The one origin had was more homiletic. Yeah, it wasn't. It wasn't intended to be like, Augustine was not trying to it's not harmony. He was trying to be scrupulous and scholarly, right. And he's two different things. These are the three main ones I've read. I know other ones have other church fathers have commented on it, but have been poking.
What I saw was that virgin would be an outcome, really not expected. So what I'm saying is,
here's why I don't think it's actually a point where using him is a problem, I think, because if you use him, okay, what I'm saying is, there's not normative, right, from your understanding. He's not he's an ecclesiastical. Not I know he's enthusiastic. Put in origin classes. Right. You know, what your question came in? Yes. So what I'm saying is, is and I think it was harsh and unfair. Yeah, most people do most of the effort and surprise with you kind of like the grading in the middle.
East it seems to be a very intelligent man, to be honest. He was he seems to be a man of truth. Do you know when I was when I was second cuz Yeah, one thing that you know what? I'm gonna try and help you be a better apologist, because you will origin where
you are, you quote, origin along.
And the thing is, there's no doubt that in terms of church history, he was the first Christian writer of great scope. Yeah, I mean, the most he he was exactly voluminous. He he was his mind was willing to touch everything. But the thing is, just because he was the first in great scope doesn't mean that he's the sharpest or the best
thing is origin. I like I if you look at first principles, and study it carefully, you can actually spot where he goes off the rails in his thinking.
You can you can trace, like finding the moon being is animate or inanimate or broke.
Even I think it's a little bit before that. But the thing is, as you as you trace out, he's thinking you can see it orthodox
The Orthodox, the Orthodox, the Orthodox, oh crap. And then he just goes off the rails because he makes one logical mistake. And it's about the material, it's about the
inside.
The idea about the internal creator or something you have in Islam, and an eternal creator means an eternal creation. Let me say one more thing, toenail materials. You know, one thing he said that I read, that actually made me really liking something. Honestly, you know, he said, he was talking about this. In his book, first principles, I read the whole thing. And to the book to the back of it, he was talking about these things I was talking about, and butterworths translation, and he said,
we need to do I said, I was so taken aback by it. And I changed my mind on all the Church Fathers after I read that statement, and I want you like, as a salesman, he jumps, he sails. He said, this, he goes, we need to look at the words of the Bible kathniel, to discern which of it is from God, and which of it is from man,
this guy sincere. And this is one of the reasons why he would be considered an ecclesiastical writer as opposed to a church father, because the Orthodox Christian position is every part of the Bible is the Word of God, in every part of the Bible is the Word of man. That is exactly what we believe about the Bible. That is
God's Spirit. No, you see, you don't, you've got to listen to me. I'm listening. So the Holy Spirit has inspired every word that man has written in the Bible. But even now, in terms of the inerrancy, right, because you didn't listen, when I said it. In the debates, I'll say to you now, I believe that every part of the Bible is true. Did you hear that every part of the Bible is true, properly understood, which means that those parts that are not meant to be read, literally, you've don't read them, literally those parts that are meant to be read, literally, you do read them literally. And even on the literal bits, let's just be clear, like, even on the literal bits, when you consider the
fact that the Bible is a written account of people's behavior, it's not going to be as safe perfect as a camera, movies of the same events, it will always miss out details, they'll always be room to make something else in. So when I invite you to the Christian faith, and I do invite you to the Christian,
I'm inviting.
I'm inviting you to the Christian faith. I'm not, I'm not inviting you to believe something like Islam. I'm inviting you to believe something better than this. I understand what you're saying. But let me tell you something, right. You know, you said truth.
In philosophy, there's different definitions of truth. Yeah. So there's, for example, the consistency, coherence is just correspondence theory, which is seems to be the most, like popular understanding. And then you have like pragmatism, different types of
what from what I understood, what you've said, is that the truth of the Bible is not necessarily from a correspondence theory, in the sense that when we say correspondence theory, but but from Russell mentions in his book,
probably philosophy, and others have agreed, this is probably the most popular theory that say, for example, truth is that which corresponds to the objective reality. Yeah. Okay. Whereas coherent ism, it doesn't have to be correspondence with objective reality, so long as it's internally consistent. Let's go here. Here's my only issue with you know, that with the with the philosophical understandings of truth, whether we talk about pragmatism, or coherent ism or correspondence theory, would seem like the Bible doesn't fit into any other and say, Why? Because let's say it's not correspondence. Yeah. So accept. We don't accept truth as correspondence for the sake of it
has to be read on its terms. I understand what you're saying. What we're saying as to be correspondence, we do believe
you're basically saying that you can't apply that standard on us. Okay, fine. Let's take a coherent ism.
internally. The problem is, what is the use of metaphors which contradicted change? Like, for example, if you have if you have a metaphor, like, if I speak about the difference between validity and soundness of an argument is that validity could talk about something which is coherent, but not actually in objective reality. So if I say for example, a unicorn
x y Zed that's a coherent story. If I say a too short man, or black and white, sorry, a black and white at the same time, or a tall, short man or a square circle, that goes against every definition of truth. What I'm saying is, for example, in the Bible in Genesis, when I surprise you, do you understand what you're saying? Yes. So in Genesis, when it talks about, for example, that the plants were made
in chapter two, it says
You know, plumbing has blown up yet, if even if we take this as allegorical The issue is not coherent. So even if we wanted to take a different understanding of truth, it still fails. So limit replies, yes, you actually raised what is a very good question. Which to be.
To be fair, is the first time i think i've ever heard you raise a good question, which is, what is the point of metaphors that contradict one another? Yes, this is something that is widely discussed in Christian spirituality. Because Christian theologian is obviously aware that there are metaphors, even in Jesus's parables that are in contradiction, the idea of being a slave, the idea of being a son, how can you be the Son and the slave of your father, that's a contradiction or a metaphor. And Christians understand the idea of contradictory metaphor. In terms of praxis, the idea is that you are meant to live in the middle of these two contradictory metaphors, not embracing one to the
neglect of the other, not embracing 50, from one and 50, from other to make 100. But embracing both 100% simultaneously. So the idea of using the sun and the slave idea, God is my father, I see myself as adopted into the family of God, but God is also a king. He also rules and owns me, he created me. And so I must act as a son, and as a subject, and exactly and identically the same. That's a good answer. Let me tell you why it's a good answer, right? It's a good answer. If If I would accept that, if you said that all the biblical
kind of direction to the end user was what to do with their own life, you made multiple points, let me just let me get to this point, let me tell you, no, no, no.
No, no, you will, I also want to point out to something, that the purpose of the Bible in the Christian faith right is very different from the purpose of the Quran. In the Islamic faith. The purpose of the Quran is that it is the nascent croteau genesis of Sharia. It is the basis the framework, the scaffolding upon which the Hadeeth book the layers, that is, am I being unfair? No, that's my reason. Yeah, right, but the point of the Bible, but that's not the only point, the point of the Bible is that it is the means by which we understand God and ourselves in the world, the narrative by which we live our lives, well answer his his issue, right. So we have two types of
injunctions, let's say all types of sentences in the front
end, we have sentences, which are either commands to people telling them what to do, right? And you have, we will have our own narratives. Now, I understand that, even if what you said is a little bit far fetched that practices and you have to live between the two metaphors, except for to think about the issue here. When it comes to statements about history. Okay, when we're talking about narrative,
when the truth of the matter is, every logician on the face of the earth will tell you that two contradictory things is a meaningless statement. It doesn't exist. It's not real. It's worse than myth. There's no there's no nature in which or there's no world possible world in which what you're saying makes sense. You misunderstand sources. So just on this point, right? The idea if God is telling me that,
if God is telling me that plants were created on the third day, on in Genesis 112, whatever it was, and then and Chang and Genesis two, five, he's saying those partners right up here, he's not telling us to be anything here. So you said
he's not telling us to be anything here. He's not telling us to be between two practices. He's just saying two things which contradict each other, which, for all intents and purposes, really, you can say is a meaningless Okay, let me
get you wrong. Love. You're so wrong, the job, the point of Genesis, think about what who Genesis was revealed to it was revealed to the free slaves of Egypt.
What were they born into, for those slaves, those ignorant marbleized, slave,
slavery finished, they were born into a polytheistic society in which there was a god for the water and a god for the sun and a god for the land and a god for the plants and a god for these animals and a God for that animals. So Genesis is telling them something, it's telling them that there is only one God and only one creator. And He is the creator of everything that he's created. These Bronze Age, Bob rice slaves, we're not looking for a science lesson. We're looking for a theological lesson can and they get that in Genesis, you are repeating the same error that you made in our debate. You are assuming that because we live in a modern scientific world, not people back in the
Bronze Age, we're also thinking scientifically, they will not take and so a scientific, scientific criticism of Genesis is invalid, okay, because it wasn't written scientifically for a scientific people.
Don't you that? Here's what I said. Thank you. I grant you let's go with that for the sake of argument, that is not meant as a scientific, scientific criticism is invalid. No one. I don't think it isn't valid. But what I'm saying is, let's say for the sake of argument, that you can interpret the Bible in a way, which is non scientific.
allegory, definitely, fine. No problem. Yeah, what I'm saying is this, even on that, or even on that basis, okay, if you do that, if you look at Genesis 112, where it says that the plots had been made in the third day, and look at Genesis two, five, we said no problem sprung up. Yeah. This particular specificity, I'm not talking about what the the motif of the theme of agenda, this is contradictory. So I am left to assume that it's false. Now, even on a coherent understanding of truth, not a correspondence understanding. I'm not saying it has to correspond with objective reality. I'm saying even on the coherence is understanding.
There's no need for that to be the case. No, what I'm saying is this, the Quran is not saying, when it says logical for you, if Telefunken if this was longer than God, they would have found that many contradictions. What is saying is that it's the principle of sufficient and necessary conditions. Now, the truth of the matter is, in our logical day to day life, we we require a certain level of this evidentiary bar that is required in order for us to come to a conclusion about faith. If that evidence was not met, then we can't we can't believe in those things. How can I be punished for this believing in contradictory statements? So let me let me address that point. Let me address that
point. Because once again, you've demonstrated what all your Dawa mates do. Ali Dawa Shamsi, I know, he's not your mate, I know he's not your mate, Hashem mandsaur, you will make this cartoonish characterization of Christianity, and then you're attacking. If you had actually taken the time to read Genesis one and Genesis two, you would see that what they are communicating is different. Genesis is talking about the creation of world. And everything in Genesis two is talking about man's place in the world. So it's talking about the creation from a theological perspective of the importance of mankind. So the chronology is not actually important, because the teaching
theologically is different by one second, let
me finish let me finish, let me finish, let me finish, you should also know that there's plenty of Christians that do harmonizations between these things, you should know that I know that so most of them don't. Because most of them recognize that literary from a literary point of view, you don't need to, because he's buying into a modernist myth, which is this idea that we should judge ancient literature by a scientific issue on the second issue on second one second, by a scientific paradigm of today, not historical. Now, let's come back to the Quran. Because the Quran,
the Quran,
the Quran, the Quran, as we demonstrated, in our discussion, make statements that are factually false, they do not correspond to reality. No, but that's what you're saying what I'm saying, is that okay, can I just come come back on this? Yeah.
We have to understand, okay, you keep saying this, if you want to be a serious apologist, that's more than just like a propagandist. You need to kind of listen to what I'm saying. And
everyone knows that. I've just told you this, the literal interpretation of the Quran is understood by the language, what the language can facilitate. For example, you mentioned that Allah, Allah has three meanings. And
in fact, the word is used in other places in the fun. That's the one about the leech, and the clinging itself, you know, is mentioned as well.
When it talks about when you have more than one wife, don't leave, don't go to one and leave the other one hanging, suspended? No, that would be metaphorical. Of course, it is. Yeah. I believe it's one o'clock. We're not saying we don't believe in metaphoric language. What we're saying is, when you metaphor is things which are not intended to be metaphor, eyes, that's where the problems come. Here's what I'm saying is
going back to the metaphors that contradict each other, so I'm happy to say that it's geology. It's a
myth, that Genesis is myth. I am happy to say that a literal reading of Genesis is not what is meant to be. Is it is it myth? Yeah, if you so long as we don't do a false equivalence, that myth means false. No, I'm not saying I believe that the mythology of Genesis Yes, is completely true. I know that I know I believe every word of Genesis, I got you saying that. So you believe that Genesis is a myth. You're depending on some kind of coherent understanding of truth. What I'm saying is, the problem is even this even a myth
which contradicts itself is useless. No, it's meaningless. Yeah. Because you're asserting a contradiction based on a primer fasciae literal reading. And I keep telling you that the primer fasciae literal reading is not how you're supposed to rock Genesis. So okay, you know when it said no problem has sprung up yet. Yeah. What does that mean? So it's talking what let's look at that entire chapter, because Bob Dawa is taking verses out of their contract. Right? So the Genesis story in chapter two is talking ultimately about the creation of money and the importance of man to creation, that man is the priest of God in creation, that is meant to be God's representative on
Earth, in creation care and to cultivate. That's the story of Genesis. Why was he so so?
much?
But the reality is, the reality is, if you assert that, Keren winning, for instance, talks about
the the idea of the blue, yeah, well, I'm saying blood is not the only thing. Right, but the point is, that's factually false. What you're saying what I'm saying that an embryo, not a blood clot, are you arguing that an embryo is the blood? Let me tell you why I said, right. The word is Allah. Yes. Was all coming. It's been translated as bookclub. It can be translated by the three translations. It literally translates I know,
you have to listen to what I'm saying. I have a whole series on this right. Now you can check on Sapiens Institute. What I'm saying is this is that one of the ones I've just told you, it means to suspend and I'll just give you an example in the Quran, that will that.
Will that time, you know?
So if you have two wives, three or four, don't go to one and then just leave the other one like that. So you leave or suspended? So you say
what not it's not metaphor. So it's not metal.
Understanding. So when he says, so when you carry on, he said, we made the note into a clock. Okay, good. Is that accurate on inaccurate? Yes, accurate. So you actually believe embryo is a blood clot? Hold on, hold on Calculatedly. That's what
I'm saying is that you're saying is bad Dawa. You've already referred to the genocide cause a myth? I'm explaining to you say that like,
let's finish finish. What I'm saying is, even if you understand, yeah.
It's gonna break my
program robot that's gonna fall and break.
None of us are Salama and a demand.
He said that
there are two things, two bloods which are prohibited to Bloods
and the spleen and lung and liver. Yeah. Now, in our backline, we have to understand this because if you don't get this you will, you will not improve your your apologetics. That's it. You're
listening. The Prophet referred to the spleen, and
liver as two bloods. Okay. Even though there's no blood, they're not blood, it's not blocked. So what it is, is that the Arab custom is that you describe something by how it looks.
Jonathan, this I'm hearing this is an evidence, because that's the promise of new blood. And it wasn't actually blood. Blood, it was the liver and the spleen. So when the foreign states is even the translation, which is blood clot, it doesn't mean by composition, it means by aesthetic value. Do you understand this? Okay, good. Now, I just want I'm saying there's three primary meanings. One of them means that one of them is all a cause something which cleans other thing, which is that
my microphone, no matter how strong you are, you just gonna fall over.
So so so the point is the translation that we have from Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia, they have chosen
they have chosen,
chosen,
they have chosen cloth, and that is scientifically inaccurate, my client, friend is
one second one second.
That when you went all you did is just make your profit look worse because you You said that your profit described things as good or not good.
So So my point to you is this is just more evidence. It was not guided by facts but that's not that's not what we're gonna start
to show how much
compensation if you read it or not is entirely
I want to give you
two pens pump.
Since you gave me a gift
card let me give you a gift I will definitely take a look at
this
all right.
Take care