“Terrorism” in the Bible?

images (1)

Whenever Muslims are shown the diabolic verses of jihad in their Qur’an, their most often common (and often the best) response is to spout a set of random Bible verses.

They are not denying that Islam is a death cult, they only want to project that onto Christianity. Here, I will briefly refute some of these silly arguments:

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish: You must kill those who worship another god” (Exodus 22:20)

Muslims rarely quote this passage but phrase it in these words because they were copied from an awful atheist site. This is the best Muslims can come up with, so let’s help cure them of their delusion.

The passage says: “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed”

Here we have a death penalty for idolatry- breaking the second commandment (Ex. 20:4-6, Deut. 5:8-10). A Bible commentary says that the Hebrew word charam used in the text means “to seclude, it refers to being finally separated from God without any possibility of redemption.”

Muslims have bent this text to serve their devious purposes. But if we did this with their Qur’an, they would threaten us with death (as per religion of peace).

Kill any friends or family that worships a god that is different from your own” (Deut. 13:6-10)

The above instruction was given to the nation of Israel alone. God revealed Himself to them in a unique way. He brought them out of Egypt and was with them as a pillar of cloud and fire (Exodus 13:21).

“And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of mount…” (Ex. 19:20)

“And they saw the God of Israel…” (Ex. 24:10).

If after these revelations an Israelite still went ahead to “worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your father’s have know” – which includes the stone deity of Mecca, he/she has broken the first law of God (“Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”- Deut. 6:4) and was to be cut off from the people of God.

On the other hand, Muslims have never seen their Allah and he has never appeared to anyone, yet they kill those who reject him.

Kill the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you” (Deut. 13:12-16).

This is another misquoting. The passage refers to war on idolatry “in any of the cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell” (v. 12).

A clause was attached to it, as it was to be carried out only within a limited sphere. But the Biblically-illiterate Muslim parroting atheists swallows the camel here.

It must be stressed that this command was given only to Israel at a specific time, not to any other nation, either then or since.

The Bible says God “has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation…” (Psa. 147:19-20).

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different from your own” (Deut. 17:2-7)

This is another wicked twisting of the text. You see, Muslims who visit atheist websites to bash the Bible are already biased, so facts don’t really matter much to them.

This command specifically refers to acts of idolatry “of a man or woman living among you (i.e the Israelites), in one of the towns the LORD gives you…”

It was not a command to destroy those with a different religious view, but applied only to those in the lands God gave them as He promised to the Patriarchs.

Governments in every culture deal with anyone trying to overthrow them. The death penalty has always been a punishment for treason in every culture, yet atheists tell us that God who created us does not have the right to punish those rebelling against His rule.

It must be pointed out that Muslims appeal to the same book of Deuteronomy to uphold death penalty for adultery (22:22), but they turn 360 degrees to lampoon the OT for prescribing death for demon worship.

By borrowing an atheist argument, the Muslim’s theological consistency collapses at this point because Allah prescribes death for “infidels” both in the Quran and Hadiths.

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest” (Deut. 17:12-13)

Apparently, the inventor of the argument is reading the modern definition of a Christian clergy into the verse. That is a vestige of ignorance.

A Bible scholar  notes that the OT priest “was man’s representative with God. He had the special privilege of approach to God and of speaking and acting in behalf of the people” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1949, 361).

The OT priests were the link between God and the people. They taught the “people the difference between the holy and the unholy” (Ezekiel 44:23) and made atonement on behalf of the congregation.

A refusal to listen to the OT priests was akin to rebellion against God who appointed them.

Under the New Testament, however, all Believers are priests before God with Jesus being our High Priest and anyone who refuses to obey Him will perish eternally. The Bible classes rebellion and stubbornness as witchcraft and idolatry (1 Sam. 15:23).

Interestingly, Muslims hold up Muhammad – a thug, rapist and assassin – as the “most perfect example” for mankind. In their convoluted reasoning, anyone who speaks against Muhammad must be killed, but they then turn around to condemn the Mosaic law for placing death penalty on people who rebel against priests! This is Himalayan hypocrisy.

Kill any false prophets” (Deut. 18:20)

Er, Muslims need to get it. Christians are not under the Old Jewish Laws given through Moses. The law was given by Moses while grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). We are disciples of Jesus, not Moses. This is why we do not stone adulterers or false prophets.

The grace of Christ has replaced the law of Moses, therefore, the punishment of evil doers lies in the hands of secular authorities (Romans 13:1-7).

Muhammad who came 6 centuries after Christ ought to have continued in the grace and truth of Christ brought, but he opposed them to his own doom.

Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not: but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling…” (1Samuel 15:3)

Who were the Amalekites? According to a reference work:

“[They were] an ancient wandering tribe descended from Esau’s grandson Amalek (Gen. 36:12, 16, 1Chr. 1:36) … Throughout the Old Testament period the Amalekites were bitter foes of the Israelites … At the time of Israel’s journey through the wilderness, the Amalekites lived in the southern part of the land promised to Israel.

“The Amalekites attacked the Israelites, but Joshua later defeated them in a battle at Rephidim (Exo. 17:8-16). Because of their treacherous attacks, Moses declared that God would continually wage war against them” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. by Ronald Youngblood, 1995, 45).

Was this “terrorism” as our Muslim friends scream? No. There is a big difference between war and terrorism.

This particular attack was actually a fulfillment of God’s promise to the Israelites to judge their foes (“for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” Ex. 17:14).

So what are the differences between the wars of the nation of Israel in the 1000 BCs and the Islamic jihads of Muhammad in the 600s AD?

1. The OT wars and violence were descriptive narratives, not prescriptive ones. They are describing events as they occurred and they were commandments God gave a specific people for a specific purpose.

These instructions are not prescribed for followers of Jesus (the church) today. On the other hand, the Quranic injunctions of war are binding on all Muslims for all time.

2. None of the OT wars was fought with the intention of forcibly converting the pagans into the religion of Israel. But Islamic jihads involves fighting anyone until they believe in Allah as god and Muhammad as a prophet.

3. The OT wars were specifically against civilizations that had gone too far in their decadence and abominations. Thus, there was an appointed time attached to the wars (e.g in Deut. 2:9, God commanded them not to war against the Moabites).

God simply used Israel as a vessel of carrying out His judgement on those nations and He also punished the Israelites too when they committed the very same sins.

On the other hand, the Quran commands Muslims to fight against and kill even God’s people like the Jews and Christians (e.g Sura 9:29). Besides, all sorts of evil inflicted on infidels (such as rape) were justified, so long as it was used to spread Islam.

4. Many of the nations the Israelites fought against had seen and heard of the many signs and wonders God had been performing through the Jews, but refused to repent (see Josh. 2:8-11, Dt. 2:25, Ex. 15:1-18).

On the other hand, Muhammad failed to provide any supernatural sign to back up his claims of prophethood and instead forced his religion on the people.

We await a time Muslims will bring something original to the table to defend Islam instead of running to atheists who hate their god to borrow their old, tired and silly arguments.

Answering the Witnesses: the Name “Jehovah”

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are the only true servants of God in the world today because they use God’s unique, personal name – Jehovah. According to them, this very name appears 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures but has been removed.

The fact is, the anglicized word “Jehovah” occurs nowhere in the Hebrew texts. The name that occurred was YHWH or JHVH which no one could exactly pronounce. This name was called the “Tetragrammation” (because of its four letters). The ancient Jews dreaded mispronouncing this name, so they used the name “Adonai” (meaning LORD) instead.

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 7, 680): “The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian church testify that the name was pronounced ‘YAHWEH’ … At least until the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E this name was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from the Lachish letters, written shortly before that date.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985, Micropedia, 12:804) agrees:

After the Exile (6th century B. C.), and especially from the 3rd century BC on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman world, the more common noun elohim, meaning ‘god’ tended to replace Yahweh.”

Later in the Middle Ages, “the vowels of Adonai were attached to the consonant YHWH … [and] the word Jehovah resulted” (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson, 1995, 503).

Therefore, the name “Jehovah” is really a man made term more so since there are no “J” or “V” sounds in Hebrew.

JWs point at the “Jehovah” in Psalm 83:18 and Isaiah 12:2, 26:4 of the King James version. This really proves nothing because the name was first coined circa 13th century A.D. and was not popular until the 16th century. The “Jehovah” name was used in William Tyndale’s translation and this is why it appears in the KJV.

In their brochure, The Divine Name That will Endure Forever, none of the archaeological proofs they presented for the name “Jehovah” date earlier than the medieval period.

JWs quote Exodus 3:15, that God must always be addressed as Jehovah but a study of the Old Testament shows that this was not the only name for God. Many times, God revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus Christ never addressed God as Jehovah, He began His prayers addressing God as “Our Father…” (Matthew 6:9). He prayed at the cross “Father forgive them…” (Lk. 23:34).

While the Jews accused Jesus of several things, they never accused Him of not using the name “Jehovah.” If God must always be referred to as Jehovah, then Jesus was in error. Christians also address God as “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:16).

Nowhere does the name “Jehovah” occur in all the 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts – since it’s not a Greek word – yet JWs have smuggled it into the New Testament of their own New World version!

Granted, their name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was adopted in 1931, it was not the name their founder gave them. The text they used, Isaiah 43:10 says “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah,“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen…”

Reading the whole chapter, however, it’s clear that it refers to the nation of Israel as a collective witness to God’s majesty, faithfulness and truth. To take this verse referring to Israel – 700 years before Christ – and claim it is fulfilled in a modern day religious group 1900 years after Christ is a gross misuse of Scripture.

In the New Testament, the main focus was for Christians to be witnesses of Jesus Christ.

Acts 1:8 “But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me [Jesus] in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.”

Acts 2:32 “God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses.

Acts 4:33 “And with great power the apostles continued giving the witness about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus

JWs desperately latch on to Acts 15:14 that God takes out “a people for his name” and they are the ones. This passage gives no name, so how did JWs arrive at their conclusion? Are they saying that God didn’t have a witness for 18 centuries until they were founded? This also leads us to another fact: there is only one name by which Christians are to be identified and that is the name of Jesus Christ.

a) In whose name should we meet together? Mt. 18:20, 1 Cor. 5:4.

b) Demons are subject to whose name? Lk. 10:19, Acts 16:18

c) Repentance and forgiveness should be preached in whose name? Lk. 24:47

d) By whose name and no other do we obtain salvation? Acts 4:12

e) In whose name are we to pray? John 14:13

f) In whose name did the early disciples heal the sick and expel demons? Acts 3:6, 16:18

g) Whose name is above all other name? Phil. 2:9-11, Eph. 1:21

The answer is Jesus Christ, not Jehovah. God has split the human language and He may not expect us to use the same name for Him all over the world.

Aside from this, God has revealed Himself not just by name, but more importantly by His Word. “I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name. For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” (Ps. 138:2)

Porn in the Bible?

Right from the early 80s when Ahmed Deedat penned this slander, Muslim clones have mindlessly rehashed the canard: “There’s porn in the Bible!” In all the examples they point at, two things can be observed: an absence of any exegesis of Scripture and a reading into the Bible texts, filths in the Muslim’s mind.

1. Lot and his daughters

Deedat wrote: “The ‘history’ has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduced their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father’s ‘seed’ … No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and a moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge on this filth. Tastes can be cultivated” (Is the Bible God’s Word? 8:50).

Muslims have the false premises that Lot was God’s prophet and all prophets must be sinless. These are untrue. Lot wasn’t a prophet – Biblically speaking – and prophets are not above sin. The Bible exposes the sins of prophets showing us that all men have sinned and are in need of a Saviour.

What Lot and his daughters did was evil, even though the law had not been given at that time (Lev. 18:6-18). When the Law was given, his son’s descendants – the Ammorites and Moabites – were forbidden to enter the congregation of God’s people up to their tenth generation (Dt. 23:2-3).

On the other hand, there are several portions of the Quran that can’t be read to decent people or even children e.g Sura 78:33 “Surely for the god fearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of swelling breasts (kawa’b) like of age and a cup overflowing.” The heavenly brothel Allah promises to jihadists is a case in point Read more here.

2. The Rape of Dinah

Muslims claim Dinah’s rape is porn, yet the crime was recorded in just a sentence. “And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her” (Gen. 34:2).

Is this pornography? When did a report of rape became “porn?” The Bible contains the records of men’s sins and good deeds so it records sins which it also condemns. That something is in the Bible doesn’t always imply that God approved it.

On the other hand, the islamic hadiths are replete with stories of rape all painted in rainbow colours because they were committed by Muhammad. But Muslims have no problem with them.

3. Solomon and his bride

Muslims allege the Song of Solomon is “full of low life graphic pornography” and “incestuous fantasies.” They quote this:

If only you were to me like a brother who was nursed at my mother’s breasts. Then if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother’s house-she who taught me. I would give you my spiced wine to drink the nectar of my pomegranates.” (SOS 8:1-3)

The speaker here is the Shulamite bride saying that her love for Solomon as her king was like the feeling for a brother – a simple and pure love. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (1967, 563) notes: “The bride, fearing that her fondness for her spouse might be construed into too great familiarity wishes that he were a little brother; and then she might treat him in the most affectionate manner, and kiss him even in the streets … without giving offense to anyone.”

I’ve seen Muslims inserting words like “vaginal semen” into this text to give it an unwarranted meaning. Really, they need to open a Biology textbook.

Pomegranate is a fruit used to produce spiced wine and there’s nothing pornographic about the verse. It’s simply a romantic discussion between two mutual lovers (perhaps a strange dynamic in the child bride marriages of Islam). Due to the perverted reasoning prevalent in Islam, Muslims are so obsessed with the book of Songs that they even attempt to “find” their Muhammad in it!

4. The Nation of Israel

Ezekiel 23:8-10 is also cited. Here, God used an allegory of two adulterous sisters to illustrate the idolatry and apostasy of Samaria and Jerusalem. Muslims latch on to “breasts of her virginity” (v. 8) and “genitals were like those of donkeys” (v. 20) alleging that it’s porno.

But if they read from vs. 1 of this chapter, they would see that a symbolic language was being employed all through. God is said to have “joined” Himself to Israel as a husband to a wife (Is. 54:5). Ezekiel 16 was His denunciation of Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness calling her “a wife that committeth adultery which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (v. 32). It was a reference to Israel’s idolatry.

All the “porn” scenarios Muslims accuse the Bible of containing are rooted in their own ignorance, defiled mind and extreme prejudice, and they need our help.