James White demolishes textual corruption claims by Ijaz 



Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship

46 replies

  1. ” Demolishes” !
    He absolutely demolished nothing, and I am not convinced .
    Again James approved the giving points, yet he came with different conclusions.
    He plays always with double standard card, yet I guarantee for him and other christians that the situation is more than different between their scriptre and Quran.

    Like

    • I agree with White that Ijaz’s claims about John 20:28 are completely without foundation. I’m somewhat embarrassed,

      Liked by 1 person

    • you win some, you lose sum

      Liked by 1 person

    • May Allah guide us to his path.

      What’s about the one in John 9 ?
      Also, John20:28 still doesn’t have it in the earliest manuscript.
      James said that just because the papyrus is old and it’s quite normal to have something in any old manuscript, and christians have many others which match line by line, so it’s impossible to be not (mygod)! However, we know from the manuscripts and from the gospels that they have with their hands now that the change and corruption have been done by the level of just one word.

      Moreover, James still plays with that how amazing that they have these manuscripts although the fact of persecution happned on the christians. I doubt if there’s any factual history here. Why would Rome perscuute chritstains as long as they didn’t make any threat for the empire? Not to mention that most changes happned in earliest centuries according to Dr Ehrman.

      Finally, he repeats that even Ehrman affirms that the gospel of John is about the ( deity of the christ)! Ok, that’s why I’ve said that Ehrman has some conclusions based on his background as an ex Christian althogh he mentined that the diety if christ is not the same level with YHWE.

      Like

    • John 20:28 Ijaz needs to provide proof that alternative variants exist for the verse – but there are none.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t get it.
      Why does Ijaz have to prove that there’re variants in those manuscripts which came after the earliest one? If all latter manuscripts agreed on that verse, how could that have anything to do with the earliest one? Notice that this is not radical as it seems beacuse we have grounded sense based on evidences that earliest authors had skills to change even a word, and Allah knows the best.

      Any thoughts about John 9:38 ?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I truly proud of you Williams. You are showing that you are a man of integrity. As I told you before you really are destroying your reputation by associating with Ijaz, Yahya, and Yusuf Ismail.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Although I am not a big fan, I appreciate James White’s explanation of the issues surrounding these two verses. He made some good points, regarding variants, lacunae, etc. However, I wish he would have just given us the facts, in a short 10 min video without spending all the extra time talking down to Ijaz and Muslims, and giving his own lecture on the morality of engaging in textual criticism. I did appreciate White’s cautionary advice to other Christians not to get angry and retaliate out of emotion, but rather to refute in a polite manner.

    I give Ijaz credit for his study of NT Textual Criticism, and for attempting to more closely examine these textual questions. There is a learning curve here, and I think that is the purpose of the bloggingtheology site. Ijaz has made us all look at these two verses more closely and this has helped us come to a better understanding. It may be beneficial to have an independent scholarly review of any such theories in the future in order to assure that they are sound and defensible. Having said that, it is possible that there may yet to be something more to Ijaz’s theory and it would also be beneficial to hear what top textual scholars in the field have to say about this issue.

    If Ijaz is truly mistaken, then surely he can be excused and forgiven, as any mistaken critique on his part is MINOR in comparison to the wild eyed, off the wall, crackpot revisionist theories that some Judeo-Christian “scholars” and apologists have made against Islam over the past years.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “I appreciate James White’s explanation of the issues surrounding these two verses. He made some good points, regarding variants, lacunae, etc. However, I wish he would have just given us the facts, in a short 10 min video without spending all the extra time talking down to Ijaz and Muslims…”

      I agree.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ” I wish he would have just given us the facts, in a short 10 min video without spending all the extra time talking down to Ijaz and Muslims”

      His arrogance is such extreme that it’s impossible for him to do that.
      May Allah guide us all.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Response to James White On John 20:28 – P66 Text

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/10/13/response-to-james-white-on-john-2028-p66-text/

    Please watch Ijaz’s latest video as there are some claims made he never said in the first place.

    Like

    • Regarding John 9:38, I really couldn’t see his point or what so called ” refutation” .

      Like

    • Br. Williams,
      Why not post the “Response to James White” by Ijaz concerning this matter. We heard what White had to say, and we should listen to Ijaz’s response. I don’t think it is “tit for tat.” Ijaz seems to be trying to better articulate his position, and address the matter more fully. It may be of benefit for us to listen further to what he has to say. Again, I think it would be interesting to hear what some of the top scholars like Dr. Ehrman would have to say on this.

      Like

    • Why are you criticizing the post title? It is fair and accurate.

      “I think it would be interesting to hear what some of the top scholars like Dr. Ehrman would have to say on this.”

      Rest assured they already know the texts very well indeed and would be dismissive of Ijaz’s claims, especially regarding John 20:28.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Come on Paul. You could have worded the article a little better. Something to the effect of “I have to agree with James White. Ijaz is clearly mistaken.” Nevertheless Ijaz’s first argument of the story of the blindman was correct. So he was halfway there. In addition to this I think this methodology is giving the Christian Apologists like Jay Smith a taste of their own medicine. (i.e. that we Muslims.can play this game as well.)

    Like

    • I’m not interested in tit for tat. I think White made some valid points which are shared by the vast majority of textual scholars. I was stunned by Ijaz’s claims. I will say no more.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s ok man! Brother Paul worded that title maybe becuase he had advised brother Ijaz to not use this kind of argument .
      May Allah guide us all to his path.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed. I had a very long telephone conversation with Ijaz about this and advised him against using these arguments. But he is free to publish them on Blogging Theology as I am free to post rebuttals of them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Okay Paul, so you spoke with Ijaz, and he didn’t listen to your advice. Fine. But still I just feel the “Completely Destroyed” title is also being a little over dramatic. James presented the argument that any other Textual Critic would have, and he added his own shock and awe with it just to give it more effect. Ijaz’s mistake was his conclusion on the second argument. (in his Video) Sadly he presented a very good point (i.e. the first one) with a very unclear point (i.e. the second one). So now both appear to be invalid. But the reality is if you watch James White’s rebuttal to the end, James appears to be very uncomfortable about the second point he addresses. (i.e. of the blind-man worshiping Jesus.) If Ijaz had just presented the information without the added statement of “Conjecture” then I believe the video would’ve started a very healthy conversation about how we date certain passages in John and how sure are we that these could be similar to the original autographs. Allahu ‘Alam.

      Like

    • You wrote: “But still I just feel the “Completely Destroyed” title is also being a little over dramatic.”

      But I didn’t say White “Completely Destroyed” anything.

      I said “James White demolishes textual corruption claims by Ijaz”

      Which in my view is not being over dramatic at all.

      White did just that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry “Demolishes!” I got your title mixed up with another article.
      Anyways the word is still quite dramatic if you ask me. But maybe in the UK the word has a lighter touch. Allahu ‘Alam. To me even if James “Demolished” Ijaz, it was only on half of the Video.
      Ijaz’s other argument completely Demolishes White’s opinion of Biblical Inerrancy.
      So I guess the score board is 1 – 1

      Like

    • Simply Seerah,
      Could you clarify what you think about John9:38 ?
      I didn’t get James’ point at all.

      Like

    • @Abdullah – James white recognizes that it is a “Major Textual Variant,” he only doesn’t like the wording of Ijaz and the added assumptions Ijaz makes about the scribes. I do admit Ijaz at times likes to use overtly “Dramatic” wording to refute someone or something. This might be due to his many years debating Christians on Social Media and Paltalk, but nevertheless the second so-called refutation can be summed up as nothing more than nit-picking. James White even himself admits that this makes Christians uncomfortable when he brings it up.

      Like

    • Correct me if I’m worng ,
      As I understand from Ijaz that we have 2 facts here about John9:38

      1) It’s not found in the earliest manuscript. It’s just not there! There’s no gap nor any omitting for natural causes.

      2) It’s added in the latter manuscripts.

      I didn’t get the point of James that “OK” for that verse to be added since the John’s gospel as whole was aimed to teach people the deity of the christ.

      Like

    • Abdullah wrote…

      1) It’s not found in the earliest manuscript. It’s just not there! There’s no gap nor any omitting for natural causes.

      2) It’s added in the latter manuscripts.

      My response, you clearly did not watch Dr Whites video. At least try to know the subject matter before you droll on.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yah,
      I did watch it. Have I missed something? I’m talking about 9:38.
      Even Ijaz in his response couldn’t see James’ point about it.

      Like

    • Abdullah wrote…

      “Even Ijaz in his response couldn’t see James’ point about it.”

      My response…
      LOL from Ijaz’s video it is clear that Ijaz began with not understanding which is Ijaz as normal. .

      Like

  6. How come everyone keeps saying this video is from Ijaz? doesn’t sound anything like Ijaz

    Like

  7. Yeah I agree we are looking at weak arguments here.Hmm, this smells of a thesis (standard reference used in some Christian circles) I know that Christian’s love to quote by yet another Dan; Daniel Brubaker’s thesis on “intentional changes in the
    Quranic manuscripts”. It uses identical arguments!

    The lesson is this, arguments can be bad, whoever uses them. Ironic that Sam Shamoun likes Dan Gibson then.

    Like

  8. Paul,
    Thanks for putting this up. Very good.

    Dr. White is right and there is no issue with John 20:28.

    On John 9:38, this is a well known textual variant. It is discussed in Philip Comfort’s book, (which Dr. White recommends) – New Testament Text and Translation Commentary

    https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Text-Translation-Commentary/dp/141431034X

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Yesterday, James said that he agreed with Ijaz about John 9 .

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Response to Ijaz Ahmad on textual variants issues and claims | Apologetics and Agape

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: