Tag Archives: missionary mishap

Missionary Mishap: Brubaker’s Error

Yesterday I published a brief review of Dan Brubaker’s book wherein I made a comment about missionaries who have not read it being those who were praising it the most. Case in point, here is a fine example of one such individual:

cc-2019-ko-brubakerrror1

Missionary Mishap of the Week

It is strange that this missionary laughed while reading my article, as I explained (about the corrections) the very same reasons which Dan Brubaker wrote in his book, the same book the missionary is now praising. To recount very briefly about the reasons a scribe can make an error given the examples in Dan’s book, I stated:

In many cases, Dan’s inability to understand Arabic nahw allowed him to choose examples which didn’t make much sense, especially in the cases where:

  • The scribe omitted or repeated a word due to confusing it with another verse (homoeoteleuton or homoeoarcton).
  • The scribe omitted or repeated a word due to copying the letters as shapes (unable to understand what they are writing, they are able to identify shapes but don’t know words or what the words mean).
  • The owner preferring another Qira’ah and requesting it be changed to that reading.

I also stated that Dan’s interpretation of a change not being made by the same scribe is largely down to the interpretation of some physical (written) characteristics of the scribe:

But it is an intentional change!
Well yes, I would imagine that if someone wrote something and realised they made an error that they would have intentionally chose to correct it.

He says that some of the corrections were later!
Not exactly, he only comes to this conclusion because the nib (writing tip of the writing instrument – think of a lead pencil’s point) was different, the same scribe could have had more than one nib, especially if they were untrained and prone to error, as some of the manuscripts clearly demonstrate some scribes were untrained. It is also possible that there was an initial scribe with one writing instrument (think of a pen, or a pencil), what scholars call the initial scribe or the prima manus and then there was a corrector or secunda manus reviewing the work of the first scribe who used a different nib or the same nib (but due to difference in writing ability their corrections were more noticeable). Therefore a difference in the nib (writing instrument) or in the stroke of the hand of the scribe (or corrector) would appear different but would not necessitate it being centuries later (that conclusion is a matter of interpretation and not one of a factual or immutable nature).

This concludes what I mentioned in my review, Dan mentions the exact same reasons in his book, from pages 19-21:

“The most obvious cause that any one of us can easily imagine if we put ourselves in the place of working as a scribe is making a simple mistake when copying or writing, realizing the mistake, and then correcting it soon after. A simple mistake-and-correction scenario fits what we see in some manuscript corrections where the ink, nib, and writing style appear to match that of the rest of the page.” – pages 19-20.

“Here are some of the questions I ask that help me think carefully about what is going on in a given situation:

Is there a discernible reason that could have caused a simple mistake? One of the common reasons for mistakes in manuscript transcription from an exemplar, for example, is the repeated occurrence of a word or sequence of words in close proximity to each other. A scribe may finish copying the first instance of the word or word sequence, go to dip the nib into the ink, and accidentally begin writing again after the second occurrence of the word or word sequence. This could be noticed later and corrected. Such a scenario or others like it is not uncommon in manuscript transmission.” – page 20.

Therefore, this missionary unfortunately renders himself as an embarrassment by trying to palm off the critical review I posted of a book he has not read but which he must support to avoid scrutiny of the Bible’s textual faults.

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Scholar Schools McLatchie

Have you ever had a scholar who specializes in your field of interest completely discredit your grasp of the field entirely? I haven’t, most people haven’t, but Jonathan McLatchie has.

cc-2016-jm-scholarschoolsjonny

Here’s the scholar’s credentials as of 2014. Five pages worth of academic qualifications spanning multiple disciplines including Judaeo-Christian theology, history and  Biblical languages. After having explained who he was and stating his credentials, none of which Jonathan can match,  I was shocked to see that Jonathan still couldn’t figure out why a scholar with more academic credentials and study would consider Jonathan to be unqualified. Perhaps Jonathan can let us know what his theological qualifications are, how many Biblical languages he knows and how many classes at University he’s taught on Islam and Judaeo-Christianity.

Scholarship, Jonathan, has deemed you totally unqualified…and it isn’t the first time either.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Steven Tilley & Vladmir Susic

It’s that time of the day again! Steven and Vladmir are friends of Sam Shamoun and Jonathan McLatchie. Most people would remember Vladmir from the several hour videos that him and Jonathan have made for YouTube. In the below discussion, Steven Tilley, a Christian missionary, posts a photo from a book claiming that this shows the Qur’an has been “tampered with”. Changes in the way vowels have been represented is not tampering, but the development of the written text to make it easier to read, in this case, known as orthography. A common example is of “sonne” and “son” (others include “mi” and “my”, “saule” and “soul”, “gode” and “good)”, the way the written language represents the word has changed, but it carries the same pronunciation and the same meaning. Nothing more, nothing less. So, I point this out to Steven. He immediately replies that I’m wrong. Then his friend and colleague, Vladmir comes along to say that I’ll be ripped to shreds by Steven on this topic.

tilley1

I didn’t recognize the book at first, so I asked him what the name of it was. After a minute of posting that question, I remembered the name and found the book that the photo was taken of. Steven never bothered to let us know the name of the book, and it is most likely he’d never do that for a very good reason. That reason? The very photo he posted was taken from the chapter on….you guessed it…..orthography!

tilley4

So what does Steven decide to do when he’s been caught lying? Well he apologized, corrected himself and his friend Vladmir did the same. Sorry, I got that wrong, Steven did none of those things and decided to do the following:

cc-2016-st-orthography3

After being caught lying, and having quoted a paragraph from the book by Keith Small, literally mentioning the word, “orthographic”, he decides to delete the entire post and pretend like it never happened. Fortunately for Steven and Vladmir, I enjoy conversations like these and knowing that they are influenced by the characters of Sam Shamoun and Jonathan McLatchie, they’d never correct themselves. This once again shows that these missionaries know very little about the topics they “discuss” and it is more about pride than it is about knowing the truth.

and God knows best!

Missionary Mishap: Pig Headed

Last week we covered the poor arguments of a young polemicist who tried to mimic one of Jonathan McLatchie’s atrocious arguments (which he later recanted). Unfortunately, this young and impressionable missionary, France Francis has done it again. He’s made the Missionary Mishap list for a second week running…

12615259_10153398452733004_1428525636954917532_o

Unashamedly, this missionary considers people like Jonathan McLatchie and Sam Shamoun to be his heroes. That’s surely no surprise for anyone here.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap – Copying Bad Arguments

Everyone wants to be a debater. Today, all it takes is a keyboard and adding a title to one’s name. In this case we have a callow missionary by the name of Evangelist France Francis. He has previously boasted that he is a friend of Jonathan McLatchie (a quick perusal of Jonathan’s timeline indicates that ‘France’ comments often on his page). With that said, while Jonathan has accepted that he made an error with regard to his claim that nowhere does Allah say: ‘I am God, Worship Me’ in the Qur’an, his young missionary friend has yet to get this memo:

12400927_10153386907683004_4671740293140677233_n

As can be seen, Br. Mustafa Sahin an up and coming Muslim apologist and debater, knocks France the Evangelist out of the park. His Qur’anic reference directly refutes the missionary:

Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance. –20:14.

It truly is amazing just how fast bad arguments can spread. Even when the missionary you allegedly learn from recants his position, missionaries still insist on using those bad arguments. It’s quite embarrassing to say the least.

and God knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie Doesn’t Understand How Debates Work

Earlier today I watched a dialogue between Jonathan and someone named Inamullah on the topic of, “Is Jesus God?”. I found a statement of Jonathan’s to be quite peculiar and made a post about it. If you’re unfamiliar with Jonathan, he’s the guy that referred to immigrants in Europe as “cancers” and “viruses”. Also the guy that believes Br. Khalid Yasin, is a Caucasian man, despite being…..African American. So what was the problem?

Moderated debates follow formats. Typically, something along the lines of:

  1. Speaker 1’s Opening Statements.
  2. Speaker 2’s Opening Statements.
  3. Speaker 1’s 1st Rebuttal.
  4. Speaker 2’s 1st Rebuttal.
  5. Speaker 1’s 2nd Rebuttal.
  6. Speaker 2’s 2nd Rebuttal.
  7. Speaker 1’s Concluding Statements.
  8. Speaker 2’s Concluding Statements.

There’s an alternation between the speakers, as can be seen above. What should also be noticed is that there are Opening Statements and then Rebuttals. This is common sense, but Jonathan does not seem to understand this. In the Opening Statements, each speaker open’s….with….their…..statements! Shocking, I know! This is where each speaker presents their arguments, their research, their ideas. Following this, the speakers then rebut, that is, respond to the arguments and claims made in each others’ Opening Statements. That’s not difficult to understand, it’s pretty much common sense. Jonathan however, does not seem to understand this basic concept. In his dialogue with Inamullah, following Inamullah’s Opening Statements, Jonathan during his 1st Rebuttal asks Inamullah why he (Inamullah) did not rebut Jonathan during his (Inamullah’s) Opening Statement.

In other words, Jonathan gave his Opening Statement. Then Inamullah gave his Opening Statement. Then Jonathan gave his 1st Rebuttal. However, it is during this 1st Rebuttal that Jonathan asks why Inamullah did not respond to Jonathan’s Opening Statement. I made a post on Facebook asking Jonathan why he expected Inamullah to rebut him, when his (Inamullah’s) 1st Rebuttal had not yet occurred. He replied:

2016-01-13-17.27.48.jpg.jpeg

You’d notice that Jonathan immediately falls into his Christian character and must find a need to insult me. I don’t mind this behaviour, after all, Jonathan did mention that Muslims were like cancer, so his hate is understandable. Follow what he says carefully though. While he acknowledges that his opponent’s rebuttal should have come during his rebuttal period, he still and amazingly so….argues that his opponent must also rebut him during their Opening Statement. I agree with Jonathan, your opponent does have a responsibility to engage with your material, that’s why there’s a Rebuttal period! There’s a solution for that Jonathan, it’s built into the format of the debate, it’s called Rebuttal periods.

The problem here is quite a good example of Jonathan’s inability to deal with criticism. There was no need for him to be condescending and rude during the debate, by speaking down to his opponent directly after his Opening Statement. You don’t demand things of people during a debate, you most certainly don’t order them around if you don’t like what they’re saying. If only there wasn’t a moderator, how much more uncouth would he have been?

and God knows best.

« Older Entries