Tag Archives: David Wood

An Example of Major Theological Corruption in the Bible: The Begotten God?

Posted on by

Begotten; it’s a theologically loaded term that carries with it a great deal of baggage. Yet, the word seems to be used in both the Qur’ān and the Bible. In the Qur’ān it is mentioned in Surah al Ikhlās in two forms of the root word و ل د (w-l-d), appearing as both يلد (y-l-d) and يولد (y-w-l-d). In the New Testament it can be found in the Johannine Prologue as μονογενὴς (monogenes) and in perhaps the most popular passage of the Bible, John 3:16, in the form of μονογενῆ (monogene), see Strong’s #3439. Philologists and etymologists at some point realised that the term μονογενὴς (monogenes) did in fact not carry the meaning of “begotten”. Rather, it seems to be the case that the word is derived from two words, μόνος (monos, meaning “only”) and γένος (genos, meaning “class, kind”). This is the reason that modern translations of the Bible have effectively dropped the use of this term in English. The NET Bible at Translation Note 38 says the following:

Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14; 1:18; 3:16, and 3:18).

https://netbible.org/bible/John+1

There are some further peculiarities here which lead to concerning conclusions. In the following video I have laid out a breakdown as to how Jerome after the Council of Nicaea emended the New Testament’s rendering in Latin (the Latin Vulgate) to insert Trinitarian phraseology in order to deny the Arian use of the New Testament. This can effectively be understood as a theologically motivated corruption to the text of the New Testament. In order to qualify my claims, I have relied solely upon Christian scholarship with all references listed in the video itself:

In light of this video I am inviting any credible Christian scholar or apologist to engage me in a live discussion on this example of corruption to the New Testament’s text.

and Allāh knows best.

False Claim: Error in Qur’an Surah 112 – “Ahadun”

Posted on by One comment

The following is a guest post by Br. Sharif Randhawa, co-author of the illuminating book, “Divine Speech” which was written alongside Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan. Br. Sharif also runs a wonderfully informative blog called Quranic Musings which I highly recommend!

I was sent the following video clips in which an individual named Anthony Rogers claims that that Quran 112:1 (qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun) contains a grammatical error, and that, moreover, Muslims mis-recite the verse in order to avoid the error:

Both of the above claims are patently false, as anyone with knowledge of even the most basic rules of Arabic grammar will recognize. It is deeply presumptuous of someone who shows ignorance of such basic rules of Arabic grammar to claim to have a better grasp of it than the premier work of Arabic literature, the Quran, and the entire Muslim tradition of Arabic grammar, not to mention of Quranic exegesis and recitation. In any case, the errors in both of these claims are as follows:

Contention 1: Rogers claims that the wording in the Quran of qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadun (“Say: He is Allah, one,” or alternatively “Say: He, Allah, is one”) is grammatically incorrect, because aḥadun means not “one” but “one of”; the text, according to him, should actually say qul huwa ’llāhu aḥadu.

Answer: Rogers’ claim is exactly the opposite of what Arabic grammar entails. In a genitive construct, which is the form that expresses the grammatical formula “X of Y,” the X (or muḍāf) that is followed by the genitive Y (or muḍāf ‘ilayhi) precisely cannot carry tanwīn (the indefinite -n ending). This is literally one of the first rules of a genitive construct in Arabic (see the excerpt from p. 44 from Alan Jones’ Arabic Through the Qur’ān, below).

cc-2018-ar-ahadun

Contention 2: Rogers then claims that Muslims mis-recite the verse to avoid this alleged error, as Muslims most frequently recite the verse as qul huwa ’llāhu aḥad, without the inflected -(u)n ending.

Answer: The claim that this is a mispronunciation is, again, false according to the most basic conventions of Arabic. This is because in Arabic speech, when one pauses at the end of a sentence that terminates with a short vowel ending, he or she normally drops the short vowel ending, including the tanwīn if there is one. Any Arabic speaker can confirm that for you.

Missionary Mishap: Neil Littlejohn’s Liberation

Posted on by 4 comments

Neil Littlejohn known as Collin, is “celebrating” his liberation from Islam while wearing Islamic clothing, keeping an Islamic style beard and an Islamic name. Quite the “liberation”! Though, while he reduces this year, 2016 to be the year of liberation from Islam, he seems to have forgotten that he changed his religion three (3) times in one year, the year of 2016:

cc-2016-nl-liberationtweet

Or that he changed his faith over 6 times in the last decade or so. Awkward!

and God knows best!

Cairo Church Bombing in Perspective

Posted on by Leave a comment

Indeed, it is a tragedy whenever lives are lost. We all grieve when the lives of the innocent are taken. Unfortunately, there are people among us who thrive off of the deaths of others, who use the blood of the innocent as a means for their political, theological and financial motives. The loss of life in Cairo to a Church bombing is awful, as is the loss of life in Istanbul from the twin bombings in that city. Yet, we must keep perspective. Inasmuch as some people enjoy and thrive off of a persecution complex, the world of Christianity had a greater disaster with many more lives lost this week. However, those lives did not matter. The deaths of some Christians matter more than the deaths of others. In Nigeria, a Church collapsed killing as much as 160 people. Yet, since it was not a bomb, and because no Muslims were involved, the deaths of 160 Christians did not matter.

cc-2016-churchcollapsenigeria

160 or more Nigerian Christians are Dead from Church Collapse

Acts17/ David Wood? Silent about Nigeria, but loud about Cairo.

Answering Muslims’ Tony Costa? Silent about Nigeria.

McLatchie? Silent about Nigeria.

Nabeel Qureishi? Silent about Nigeria. Why the silence?

Do they only care about Christians if they’re not African? Do they care only if a Muslim is involved? They can’t get donation money or fame out of truly caring about their Christian brethren. Then again, they probably have short memories and while quick to put the blame of the Cairo bombing on Muslims and Islam (without evidence), a little bit of history goes a long way:

Egypt’s general prosecutor on Monday opened probe on former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly’s reported role in the New Year’s Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed, an Egyptian lawyer told Al Arabiya.

Laywer Ramzi Mamdouh said he had presented a proclamation to Egyptian prosecutor Abd al-Majid Mahmud to investigate news media reports suggesting that the former interior ministry had masterminded the deadly church attack with the intent to blame it on Islamists, escalate government crackdown on them, and gain increased western support for the regime.

Then again, if they can’t be bothered to care about Nigerian Christians, why should we expect them to care about anything other than themselves?

and God knows best.

Qur’an says “Sun Setting in Muddy Water,” claim Refuted – By Br. Ijaz and Br. Abu Ayoub

Posted on by Leave a comment

In this in-depth video, myself and Br. Abu Ayoub examine the claim that Qur’an in Surah  18:83-86 literally says the sun is “setting in a spring of muddy water.” We walk through the phenomenological statements the Bible also uses in respect to the sun rising and setting, usually known as semitisms which is a form of language behaviour or syntax in the Semitic languages. In the end, we see that the Arabic and Hebrew languages use many language devices that are not meant to be interpreted hyper-literally and which use hyperbole to express some geographical boundary.

and God knows best.

Christian Polemicists Declare Trinity Channel Heretical

Posted on by 3 comments

Some would remember that a few months or so ago, Sam Shamoun used to hold shows and debates on the Trinity/ ABN Channel. At some point both him and David Wood stopped appearing on the channel. David in an email indicated it was because he could no longer work with the unprofessional Christian staff of the channel and also could not tolerate the ignorant Christian audience of the channel. In an email dated September 15th, 2105 he says:

Also, why would we take callers in the middle of such short debates? Was this your idea, or did Haifa suggest it? I see multiple problems here. First, we’re not in the studio, and I anticipate all kinds of technical difficulties arising. (We often have technical difficulties with questions in the studio, so I can’t imagine things going smoothly with everything happening somewhere else.) The more complicated the set-up, the more problems are going to slip in to derail the debates. Second, the vast majority of viewers would rather listen to us address a topic than a questioner asking us questions. It would be nice if all callers asked relevant, probing questions, but they won’t. Good questions will be only a fraction of the actual questions we get. People will call in with insults, they will start yelling and we’ll have to cut them, and most of the questions will be completely irrelevant to the topics. That’s just what happens when phone lines are opened for anyone to call in.

In another email on the same date he also said:

As for ABN, I’ve been working with them for years, but I’m at the end of my rope. I simply want to get these debates out of the way so that I don’t have to deal with this network ever again. (Yes, name redacted, years of working with ABN allows us to be frank with each other, and too many frustrating experiences have taken away any inclination I have to soften my words. This is why there’s a need to part ways. We simply don’t work well together and can’t agree on anything. I’m to the point where I get a miserable, sinking feeling whenever I’m contacted by ABN, because I know it’s going to ruin my day.)

Today, Sam has tried to create another excuse as to why the TV station no longer wanted to work with Sam and David, he says on Facebook:

cc-2016-ss-trinitychannelolsteen

Here’s the problem, at the time David and Sam stopped appearing on the Trinity/ ABN Channel, David sent out numerous emails claiming that he was upset, angry and frustrated with both the ignorant and unprofessional staff at the station, as well as with the Christian viewers who supported him, calling in and insulting guests. Sam, some ten months later in an attempt to deflect the personal differences that led them to part from the Christian polemics TV station, instead blames his lack of appearances due to the “false Gospel” message that the station is now sharing, some ten months later. In other words, Sam is blaming something that happened yesterday, ten months after he was booted from the station due to personal conflicts with the staff, as the reason for why he no longer appeared on the station ten months ago. That simply does not make sense for anyone who spends more than a few seconds to contemplate the claims made.

All in all, both Sam and David had seriously negative and angry views about the station and their viewership, and found themselves no longer having an amicable relationship with the TV station’s staff. They had no public excuse at that time to mask the personal conflicts that led to their leaving of the station so they remained silent until they could use another excuse to explain their glaring absence. Today, that excuse came in the form of the Trinity Station endorsing a heretical form of Christianity with Joel Osteen at its head. Thus, the issue presents itself that the Trinity Channel is now preaching a brand of Christianity that Sam and company fundamentally view as heretical. An entire TV station converted to a heretical form of Christianity and Sam Shamoun, who views himself as a great Christian teacher and apologist, who has the Spirit of God allegedly inside him, could not convince his own Christians to remain in their faith.

The question thus begs itself, if people like Sam Shamoun, David Wood and their student Jonathan McLatchie who consider themselves educated and guided by the Holy Spirit cannot save their own Christian brothers and sisters from following what they consider to be heretical and false Gospels, then why don’t they focus on the Christian community rather than on Islam? It means to say that they cannot save their own Christians, and so they need to find some other way to keep themselves relevant, which is to deflect from the dire situation they are in within the Christian community and in so doing are using Islam as a distraction from the growing apostasies in their own Christian communities. Sam and David spent years preaching on the Trinity/ ABN Channel, only for the channel and its viewers to begin preaching what they call a false Gospel.

Clearly there is a problem with Christianity, if its “greatest” and most “popular” apologists cannot save their fellow Christians from abandoning their faith en masse.

and God knows best.

Upcoming Debates – April & May 2016

Posted on by One comment

There are two major debates happening soon, details are provided below.

Topic: “What Is the Qur’an’s View of the Christian “Scriptures”?”
Featuring: Dr. Shabir Ally and Mr. David Wood
Location: Bethel Church (USA).
Date: April 26th, 2016.
Time: 6 PM.

shabir debate

Considerations for a livestream are ongoing, however the debate will be recorded. Links to the video or possible livestream will be posted when they become available. Sam Shamoun has asked that we do not mention the terms “hammer” or “father” in our interactions with Mr. Wood given his ongoing mental issues. Women are also asked not to wear clothing that may attract Mr. Wood’s attention due to his gender proclivities.


Topic: “The Doctrine of the Trinity: Man Made or Divinely Stipulated?””

Featuring: Br. Adnan Rashid and Dr. James White
Location: Kensington, London (UK).
Date: May 13th, 2016.

The debate will be livestreamed, we will be sharing the link when it becomes available. Details about the event’s location and time will be provided when they also become available.

and God knows best.

Reproaching One’s Brother – Jonathan McLatchie

Posted on by 2 comments

After spending sometime among Christian activists and preachers, a prominent theme I found amongst them was having the ability to discern between right and wrong, and the act of reproaching fellow Christians if they fell out of line. Many verses were given to me, some of them are as follows: Proverbs 27:17, Galatians 6:1-2, James 5:16, Ephesians 4:25, Hebrews 10:25, etc. This act of reproaching fellow Christians is seen as a mandatory spiritual duty, failing to do so indicates that one isn’t devoted to Christ as much as he should be. A Christian, as I was told, that lacks the ability of spiritual discernment, lacked Christ.

In light of these beliefs, it was brought to my attention sometime ago that most Christian polemicists actively don’t care about Christianity, see my article: Do Christian Apologists Care About Theology? One of the polemicists I didn’t comment on in that article was Johnny (Jonathan McLatchie). I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited to see what he’d do with his entrance into polemics. Sadly, I waited in vain as he repeated articles from Rogers, Wood and Shamoun. Nothing new was coming from him, nor was he attempting to reach out to heretical Christians. Take for example, his relationship with David Wood.

cc-2015-jonathanmclatchie

David expressly declares his agnosticism on core Christian beliefs and has made those views public. Jonathan as a fellow Christian, who now posts on David’s blog has had the opportunity to reproach David and preach the Gospel to him. However, Jonathan has failed to do so, and according to the aforementioned verses, this would mean he lacks devotion to Christ. Consider the case of David’s agnosticism over God’s ontology. The very nature of God is something that David is agnostic about. How can one be so hypocritical as to preach a religion about a God that they are doubtful about? If Jonathan was a devoted Christian, shouldn’t preaching to, and reproaching a popular Christian speaker be his most important goal? It needs to be asked, does Jonathan simply not care about Christ and is he merely speaking about Islam (an area he is demonstrably uneducated in), for private and personal gain?

Regarding God’s ontology, David is undecided about the power and knowledge of God. He does not know, and he does not care to accept one of the two mainstream beliefs in Christianity: Calvinism and Arminianism. In Calvinism, the Person of Christ – whom Christians consider to be God – did not die in the same way for everyone. This is known as limited atonement. It teaches that Christ/ God did not die in the same way for all men, otherwise everyone would be born-again. On the opposite end, Arminianism teaches universal atonement, that Christ/ God died for everyone in the same way. These are two fundamentally differing views of God. Christians trying to preach to David had to endure verbal threats and abuse from him, one Christian stated:

cc-2015-dw-calvinism2

David himself said:

cc-2015-dw-calvinism4

David in this post admits to flip-flopping between his beliefs. This is problematic because it involves his own salvation. According to Calvinist beliefs, the elect cannot become apostates or lose their faith. By this definition, since David is undecided and flip-flopping, then he is not of the elect, which would mean he is not saved according to Calvinist theology. On the other hand, Arminians believe a Christian can fall from grace and lose their salvation. Which view does Jonathan take regarding David? If he takes the Calvinist view, then David is an apostate. Since David flip-flops between the two mainstream views, he’s an agnostic and is not certain about his own salvation. In that case, it must then be asked, why isn’t Jonathan worried about David’s salvation when readers on the blog he posts too are?

cc-2015-dw-calvinism

Being undecided about God’s nature regarding God’s attribute of love is a serious issue. It would then mean that Jonathan and David fundamentally believe in two different Gods, with two different attributes of love. It would mean that they believe in two different plans of salvation, two different plans of soteriology. This isn’t something minor and to be ignored, it deals with a person’s salvation. This is the most important discussion that should be happening. Yet, it isn’t. There are many other things we can ask about. Has Jonathan ever condemned and reproached David for cross-dressing?

cc-davidwood

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

The question needs to be asked: is Jonathan interested in Christian theology, or does he just want to gain popularity? Let’s take for instance, Jonathan’s appearing on ABN TV. David in an e-mail dated September 15, 2015 says of ABN’s audience:

“The more complicated the set-up, the more problems are going to slip in to derail the debates. Second, the vast majority of viewers would rather listen to us address a topic than a questioner asking us questions. It would be nice if all callers asked relevant, probing questions, but they won’t. Good questions will be only a fraction of the actual questions we get. People will call in with insults, they will start yelling and we’ll have to cut them, and most of the questions will be completely irrelevant to the topics. That’s just what happens when phone lines are opened for anyone to call in.”

David recognizes that ABN’s audience are Christians who insult, yell, and who ask irrelevant questions. David went so far as to cut ABN off, in an e-mail of the same date he says:

“As for ABN, I’ve been working with them for years, but I’m at the end of my rope. I simply want to get these debates out of the way so that I don’t have to deal with this network ever again.”

While David condemns and reproaches ABN, Jonathan runs to them and attempts to get on as many programs as he can. Does this mean that David is lying about ABN and its poor quality of viewership, or does it mean that he is telling the truth and Jonathan just wants to serve his ego? If David is wrong, then Jonathan should condemn him and reproach him for lying about a Christian network. On the other hand, if David is correct, then Jonathan needs to reproach ABN and condemn them. If he does neither, which is most likely, then he is failing to uphold his spiritual Christian duty of reproaching fellow Christians when they fall into evil, whether that be having heretical beliefs, cross-dressing, and lying about fellow Christians.

It remains to be seen whether Jonathan cares about David’s salvation, or of his own.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries