Does Christian
site “Answering-Islam” mention the Bible being corrupted?
Here we are addressing the constant repeats of Osama Abdallah, the web-administrator of www.answering-christianity.com . Apparently Mr. Abdallah believes that if he consistently repeats a particular argument, no matter how incorrect it is, some how some way it will turn out to be correct. Basically Mr. Abdallah is nothing more than a 3rd rate un-credible apologist who relies on shoddy research and emotional arguments in his efforts to convince the uninformed reader of his views and opinions. Mr. Abdallah is highly educated and does have a degree in Computer engineering but one would never know this from the substance of his arguments or the quotation of scholarly material he uses.
My grandmother can read better than Mr. Abdallah and she passed away almost 5 years ago! The point of me saying this is simply the fact that Osama purposely quotes the NIV out of context or misquotes this source. His theory that “authorship means authenticity” is easily recognized as flawed by any intelligent reader. For example:
A book could be false, EVEN IF THE AUTHOR IS NAMED.
Apparently despite all of his tricks and tactics, Mr. Abdallah has yet to figure this great mystery out. Many Christians aren’t concerned about who wrote what particular books. This is actually a red herring since to us; it is God who is the author of the bible. Mr. Abdallah tries to create this great controversy because he is hoping that Muslims will accept anything he claims at face value. Osama also fails to subject the Quran to this same test because he knows that it would also fail his criteria also. He may claim that “Allah inspired the Quran”, which is something no Christian or Muslim disputes but the simple problem facing him is “WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE SURAH’S OF THE QURAN”? Since no particular chapter has any author given then we must conclude that the Quran is also corrupted according to Mr. Abdallah’s warped conspiracy theories.
The Absurdity of Mr. Abdallah’s argument can be further seen from his usage of the NIV bible. His appeal to this particular version of the English translation is about as smart as me appealing to a particular English Quran commentary on the corruption of the Quran. Most Christians don’t even speak English, hence the appeal to a particular translation is nothing more than the fallacy of “appealing to authority”. Osama’s logic can be easily summed up here:
Because the NIV says something on the bible it therefore
must be true.
The problem with this stance also is that Osama Abdallah doesn’t except this from the NIV bible:
As far as Zondervan is concerned as the publisher of the NIV, and International Bible Society as the copyright owner of the NIV, nothing could be further from the truth. For 188 years IBS, and for 66 years Zondervan, have faithfully communicated the richness of GOD'S REVELATION. (NIV ONLINE LETTER PREFACE TO NIV BIBLE)
According to the NIV translators, it is the Bible, NOT THE QURAN, which is the revelation of God to mankind. Does Osama Abdallah accept this? No. Basically he takes quotes and assumes that anything that agrees with what he thinks must be true IS TRUE. According to logic this is nothing more than SOMEONE’S OPINION. In his debate with Sam Shamoun recently, Osama Abdallah even admitted that his stance was full of embarrassing contradictions. Hence, he believes the bible to be corrupted but yet uses this same bible to find Muhammad in it. Not only is this absolutely absurd, even to intelligent non-Christians but the sheer stupidity of such a stance would easily lead to the conclusion that “Muhammad must be a corrupt prophet prophesied by a corrupt book”!
Not only does the NIV claim that the Bible is uncorrupted, (even if they did, who the hell are they anyway, to mainstream Christianity? Nobody!) they even go as far as to say this:
The NIV is based on the most
reliable Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. A translation team of more than 100
evangelical Bible scholars from many different denominations, using four levels
of committee review, worked for 13 years before the complete Bible was released
in 1978. These scholars came from the
OPERATING FROM THE CONVICTION THAT THE BIBLE IS THE INSPIRED AND WHOLLY RELIABLE WORD OF GOD, the translators wanted to faithfully reproduce what the original Scripture writers wrote, in language that people could read and understand without difficulty. They were - and are - committed to the AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE. The NIV has become the bestselling translation of the Bible, with more than 100 million copies in print. (NIV ONLINE LETTER)
Wholly reliable word of God! You see this? Yes. Corrupted? No. If the NIV ever heard that Osama Abdallah was propagating this theory based on their commentary they would immediately reject this and probably attempt to sue him for slander of their material. Here we present to you all of the quotes from Osama’s post debate link here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm
And,
http://www.answering-christianity.com/shamoun_slip.htm
You will see below how he quoted the NIV and the full
quotes, if applicable, as well as our comments.
|
What Osama Abdallah
quoted |
Full NIV Quote or other scholarly quotes. |
Comments |
|
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the
Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and
display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content
that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending
has been lost.
(From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)" |
Some
of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse
8. ONE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THE BOOK WITH THE SHORTER ENDING; OTHERS
INCLUDE THE SHORTER ENDING AND THEN CONTINUE WITH VERSES 9-20. IN MOST
AUTHORITIES VERSES 9-20 FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER VERSE 8, though in some
of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful. (Word Study
Greek-English New Testament, Tyndale, Wheaton, Illinois, Paul R. McReynolds,
1999 ISBN 0-8423-8290-9) |
History has shown that Mark has both a
short as well as an unabridged ending. Most authorities have Mark 16:9-20. It
is only "SOME" who mark it as doubtful. Most means more than Some.
That is what the NIV said that the ending: PROBABLY
ENDED at 16:8 They were aware that most MSS have this
verse and it would be incorrect to claim that this verse was a later
insertion! Osama's whole evidence was based on probable evidence. If he
wanted to prove that Mark 16:9-20 was clearly a later addition, surely he could've
furnished a NIV quote that explicitly says "THIS GOSPEL DEFINITELY ENDED
AT VERSE 8 AND THE REST IS A LATER INSERTION". |
|
"Although
the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and
inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion
that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)" |
Although
the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and
inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke.
The earliest of the external testimonies appears in the Muratorian Canon (C.
A.D. 170), where the explicit statement is made THAT LUKE WAS THE AUTHOR
OF BOTH THE THIRD GOSPEL AND THE "ACTS OF ALL THE APOSTLES"...
Within the writing itself are some clues as to who the author was: 1. LUKE
THE COMPANION OF PAUL...LUKE THE PHYSICIAN. "(NIV Study Bible
Commentary, pg. 1643) |
According to the NIV,
evidence outside the bible itself verifies that Luke is the author.
Apparently the NIV doesn’t think it necessary for the author to name himself
for every book. |
|
"The
writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was
obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1856)" |
Nobody
really knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. But whoever did write
the letter certainly understood the plight of those to whom it was written-for
he was obviously well known to the original recipients. Although seperated
from them at the time of writing, this writer knew them and looked forward to
the day when they would be brought together again. Yet nowhere in the letter
did he bother to give his name. WE WISH HE HAD! That would have saved
thousands of hours for scholars and teachers and preachers who have for
years attempted to solve this mystery. Some thing are
worth intense study, and other things, although they may be interesting and
thought-provoking, are not worth the time. AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION OF
THE AUTHORSHIP OF HEBREWS IS ONE OF THE THINGS NOT WORTH MORE OF OUR TIME.
The most important thing to remember is that THIS BOOK HAS BEEN INSPIRED BY
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PRESERVED AS PART OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. NO MATTER WHO
PENNED THE WORDS, GOD HAS GIVEN US THIS MESSAGE AND PROTECTED IT THROUGH THE
CENTURIES. (NIV Insights Bible, Commentary on Hebrews pg. 1330) |
According to the NIV, the
authorship of Hebrews has no bearing on the authenticity of its message. It
isn’t even worth the time or effort of the NIV society to look for the
authorship. |
|
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1905)" |
"....Unlike most NT
letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest
identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 1904)" |
Authorship ID comes from
the 1st century church fathers. So much for anonymity |
|
"It
seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from
the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping
or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who
the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page
286)" |
In
the judgment of many scholars Joshua was not written until the end of the period
of the kings, some 800 years after the actual events. But there are
significant reasons to question this conclusion and to place the time of
composition much earlier. THE EARLIEST JEWISH TRADITIONS (TALMUD) CLAIM
THAT JOSHUA WROTE HIS OWN BOOK EXCEPT FOR THE FINAL SECTION ABOUT HIS
FUNERAL, which is attributed to Eleazer son of Aaron...Morever, the author's
observation are accurate and precise. He is thoroughly at ease with the
antiquated names of cities, such as "the Jebusite city" for |
Shouldn’t the Jews know
more about their scriptures than Osama Abdallah or the NIV? Yes. Osama even uses
the Talmud against the bible in certain arguments on his site. |
|
"Although, according to tradition,
Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain. (From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 322)" "The date of the composition is also
unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy. (From the NIV Bible
Commentary, page 322)" |
Although,
according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually
uncertain. It is possible that Samuel assembled some of the accounts FROM
THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES and that such prophets as Nathan and Gad, both of
whom were associated with David's court, had a hand in shaping and editing
the material. (NIV Study Bible, Commentary on Judges, pg. 322) |
The NIV rejects FULL
authorship of Samuel by Samuel because they believed that he only assembled
SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS. They didn’t say that the book was corrupted or verified
Islam! |
|
"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition
points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the
mention of David ( |
The
book of Ruth is a Hebrew short story, told with CONSUMMATE SKILL. Among
HISTORICAL NARRATIVES IN SCRIPTURE it is unexcelled in its compactness,
vividness, warmth, beauty and dramatic effectiveness--- AN EXQUISITELY
WROUGHT JEWEL OF HEBREW NARRATIVE ART (NIV Study Bible, Commentary on
Ruth, pg. 361) |
According to the NIV Study
Bible, the supposed corrupted book of Ruth is a literary jewel as well as a
historical narrative in scripture!! |
|
"Who the author was
cannot be known with certainty
since the book itself gives no indication of his identity. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368)" |
|
So basically the author is unknown
but NIV says nothing on if the material is wrong or corrupted. |
|
"There is little conclusive evidence
as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings. (From
the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)" "Whoever
the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of
Deuteronomy. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)" |
|
So we don’t know the author
according to the NIV but author was familiar with book of Deuteronomy. Says
nothing about book being corrupted. |
|
"According to ancient Jewish
tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to
Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with
certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)" |
GOD
KNEW HE WAS NOT WHIPPING UP A BEST SELLER WHEN HE INSPIRED THE BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES-- but he never intended
to...EZRA WROTE FROM A SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE AND VANTAGE POINT. He was
looking back on the history of his people after their spiritual erosion, fall
and captivity. When you write something from hindsight, you have a lot of
insight, and that is what EZRA BROUGHT TO THE RECORD CONTAINED IN
CHRONICLES (NIV Living Insights Bible, Commentary on Chronicles, pg. 402) And
it must be acknowledge that the author, if not Ezra himself, AT LEAST
SHARED MANY BASIC CONCERNS WITH THAT REFORMING PRIEST. (NIV Study Bible,
Commentary on Chronicles, pg. 571) |
The NIV Study Bible argues that Ezra came
from the time of Ezra, and if he didn’t write it then a close eyewitness
wrote it. |
|
"Although we do not
know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about
the author and the date of composition. (From
the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)" |
The
earliest reference to the |
In Persian history, a
scribe, not Esther the Queen, would have written down this account. General
Middle Eastern knowledge. |
|
"The unknown author probably had access to
oral and/or written sources....(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722)" |
The
unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources from which,
UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION, he composed the book that we now have. Of
course the subject matter of the prologue HAD TO BE DIVINELY REVEALED TO
HIM, SINCE IT CONTAINED INFORMATION ONLY GOD COULD KNOW. (NIV Study
Bible, Commentary on Job, pg. 722) |
Osama forgot to say that the
unknown author was under DIVINE inspiration. Blows his whole argument out of
the water! |
|
"Regarding authorship,
opinions are even more divided....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)" |
|
So Osama bases bible
corruptions on opinions, even though he claims on his site that he only uses
facts! |
As you can clearly see, the NIV says just the opposite of what Osama Abdallah actually claims. It is simply amazing that any self-respecting apologist would embarrass himself or his credibility just to defend his religion on misquotes, lies and outright propaganda. Osama is so desperate to recovery from his embarrassing defeat in his debate with Sam Shamoun until he is lying and admitting that Mr. Shamoun claimed twice that the Bible is corrupted. Theoretically even if Mr. Shamoun did, which is absolutely unlikely in this lifetime, it is nothing more than a statement by Mr. Shamoun, and nothing more. Osama Abdallah’s logic is saying “Hey we base our entire religion on the admission of Sam Shamoun”. If this doesn’t sound as stupid as one could possibly sound, then anyone prescribing to this theory needs some serious mental help. Here we will respond to Osama’s statement to Mr. Shamoun, eliminating all of the usual repeated mantra links he loves copying and pasting on his articles. One would think that upon reading his site that they were listening to the ranting of a parrot instead of normal human.
Mr.
Shamoun further embarrasses himself, and ironically, slips and admits TWICE
that his bible is corrupt in this small email debate:
Throughout
Mr. Sam Shamoun's email, you'll see how he desperately tries to give any dumb
answer to save his bible's face. Yet, in the very end of his email, he
has fully contradicted himself when he admitted TWICE that the bible
is corrupt. Frankly, I don't need this article to prove the
bible's corruptions and contradictions, because I have provided ample irrefutable evidence for this
on my site. But I just find it quite hilarious that the
bible's own theologians and apologists (including Sam Shamoun) admit that it is
corrupt, and yet, Sam Shamoun insists on acting stupid and further humiliate
himself.
As we mentioned above, Christianity isn’t based on the words of a single convert. Also what is hilarious is that Osama’s scholars say exactly the opposite as to what he claims, as we have shown above. I challenge Osama Abdallah to
You can search Osama’s entire site and not find this information above. The reason why is because neither his Quran nor the NIV scholars claim such a thing. Osama can only interpolate this information to his reader. Since Osama can’t furnish a single credible source other than his misquotes of the NIV, it is he, not Sam who should be embarrassed.
He Wrote:
From: Sam
Shamoun
To: Osama Abdallah
Date: 8/21/2004 5:37:59 PM Central Standard Time
Hello
Bro,
"Quennel
has actually refuted your articles and has exposed the lies and
misrepresentation of what the NIV Study Bible actually says."
"I
do have the NIV Study Bible and you did not quote them accurately."
>It
seems to me your two quotes are contradicting with each others. First,
>I quoted from sources that posted lies against the Bible. And second, I
>did not quote them accurately.
Well,
this is because you don't read carefully so let me emphasize the part you
missed:
"Quennel
has actually refuted your articles and has exposed the lies AND
MISREPRESENTATION of what the NIV Study Bible actually says."
So you
both lied about what it does say AND you misrepresented your source by
misquoting it. I hope this clears it up for you.
My
response:
Mr. Sam
Shamoun still insists on embarrassing himself and holding on to his
stubbornness. At www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm,
I quoted exactly what the NIV Bible theologians wrote about the doubts of the
authenticity of most of the bible's books and gospels. Here is a sample
of what I quoted:
Osama Abdallah plays judge and jury in his response here. First off he doesn’t say how Sam embarrassed himself or what mistake he made but only attempts misrepresent his words. Sam explicitly said that Osama “MISQUOTED” the NIV but Osama can’t seem to comprehend this and instead replies by saying “I quoted exactly what the NIV Bible theologians wrote…”. Osama misses the point entirely for one can quote exactly what a source says and it still can be misquoted or a quote out of context or a quote that isn’t fully given. As you saw above, the quotes which Mr. Abdallah used didn’t accurately prove his point nor were fully quoted. We already answered Osama Abdallah on our website about these very same quotes. Instead of replying to them, he could only offer a general response full of recopied links and rehashed material.
How do you respond to
this?
Please visit: Contradictions and proofs of
Historical Corruptions in the Bible, and see exactly what I
mean, instead of acting like a total fool and saying things that even the Bible
refutes in it!
It is
quite obvious that Christians today believe in third party authors' words as
the words of GOD. This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that
must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers. Please visit "Is the Bible the true word of GOD?"
to see a full and complete paper about the logical corruptions in the Bible,
along with many Christian famous priests and ministers opinions that agree with
the Bible's corruption. I have their personal quotes in that site.
All of Mr. Abdallah’s contradictions in the bible were answered at www.answering-islam.org years before he even copied and pasted them to his own website. If he really thought that they weren’t answered then he should point out which contradictions weren’t answered and then present a link which says “these are contradictions in which “answering-islam” failed to answer. Isn’t it strange that a person with such a big mouth has been silent on this? Yes. Also Mr. Abdallah’s second paragraph is a contradiction for he says:
It is quite obvious that Christians today
believe in third party authors' words as the words of GOD.
So according to Mr. Abdallah, third party words and opinions isn’t the word of God and should be rejected. He further verifies this by saying:
This is a very serious corruption in the Bible that must be taken into deep consideration by the Bible's followers.
So we must take third party commentary into consideration according to Mr. Abdallah. But wait, he contradicts himself by appealing to third party opinion on the corruption of the bible:
Now if third party commentary from inside the bible isn’t useful then what in the world does Mr. Abdallah think that this same commentary outside the bible is any more useful? The only reason he would find it useful is because he already assumes the Bible to be corrupted so anything that parrots this belief JUST HAS TO BE TRUE OR VALID according to Mr. Abdallah. Basically Mr. Abdallah is guilty of committing the fallacy of “begging the question”, which is assuming something true before one proves it to be so. What is even more hilarious is that Mr. Abdallah uses this same corrupted bible to find Muhammad in it as he tries to prove in these links:
Also, as to the parts of the
Bible that Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm
After that, please visit:
Prophet Muhammad was foretold in many places in the Bible
in both the Old and New Testaments.
But of course Mr. Abdallah wouldn’t deem this approach as contradictory. As absurd and stupid as his argument actually is, Osama thinks that we should believe such stupidity.
He wrote:
>Well,
for your first quote, I think this is quite irrelevant Mr. Shamoun.
>I mean with all due respect, I'd rather take the NIV and the KJV (by the
>way) commentary over your opinion :).
I am glad you do since they prove my point and expose you. So I agree, I rather
take their full quotations, not your misquotations and outright twisting of
these sources, over whatever you may lie against the Bible. :-)
My
response:
Why don't
you post their so-called "full" quotations, instead of talking cheap
and decieving sentences in a desperate hope to fool your readers?!
In www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm,
I have given the quotes of the full paragraphs! While I truncated my
samples above for easier read, but the quotes in the article are more detailed.
Also, I
don't know what more do you want when you read things such as "Serious
doubts exist....", "the authors is unknown",
etc....
We already posted the full quotations. Mr. Abdallah has amnesia and you will notice that he never offered to link my direct link with these quotes answering his website. Also Mr. Abdallah still hasn’t linked the theory of “anonymity” to “textual or moral corruption of a text”. If he is so sure about his religion then can he please tell us what scribe wrote down the Quran for Muhammad via Allah’s command. We aren’t just talking about part of the Quran but the entire book. Out of all his loudness and empty rhetoric, Mr. Abdallah has failed miserably to do this. Just to give you an example of how his absurd method of thinking can be turned against the Quran look at these examples here:
10.YUNUS (JONAH)
11.HUD (HUD)
12.YUSUF (JOSEPH)
14.IBRAHIM (ABRAHAM)
19.MARYAM (MARY)
27.AN-NAML (THE ANT, THE ANTS)
34.SABA (
47.MUHAMMAD (MUHAMMAD)
71.NOOH (NOAH)
72.AL-JINN (THE JINN)
105.AL-FIL (THE ELEPHANT)
So who were the real authors of these books? Did the ants write? Did the Elephant write a Surah? Last I checked, Joseph, Mary, Abraham, etc., were dead before the Quran was given. We see that at least 11 Surahs in the Quran were named after people who didn't write them!! So these Surahs cannot be the word of God if Osama's logic is correct!!! However, Osama clearly takes them as biographies of these individuals. We wonder why then does he use a double standard? It’s because his religion can’t stand on its own merits therefore he must attack Christianity.
So Mr. Abdallah who are the authors of these surahs? Allah didn’t
physically come down and write them!
We would like to see Mr. Abdallah squirm out of answering this million dollar question for us.
He wrote:
>As to
your second quote, again, I wonder what you mean by "accurately". My
>quotes are as clear and straight forward as they get. When they say
>"Serious doubts exist...", and "the author is
unknown....", etc..., then I
>don't know how in the world I have misquoted them inaccurately.
If you don't how you did then you need to reread them and read Gale's
annihilation of your paper. Again, this only confirms what I have been saying
about you.
>Also as to Quennel Gale's response, I have debunked it for him and exposed
>his silly comments and desperate attempts to save the bible's face at:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm
Sorry but you need to come out of fantasy island. You have not refuted Que in
the least. Que schooled you badly in the first paper AND IN HIS RESPONSE to
your response:
http://answer-islam.org/whowrotegospel.html
http://answer-islam.org/Osamabiblerebuttal1.html
He actually made you look silly. So you need provide a real responses this
time.
My
response:
Well, talk is cheap. The reader can easily see that I have annihilated Quennel Gale in my rebuttal to him at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm. All he has done is give insults and cheap remarks without proving anything. As I have proven with the sample quotes above, and many many others inside the article, the bible does contain errors and contradictions in it. Also, the following small sample further show the textual contradictions in the bible:
Yes, talk is cheap which is the only thing Osama could afford to do in his response to my link. Also where exactly did I personally insult Mr. Abdallah with cheap remarks? Also where did I not prove anything Mr. Abdallah? As you can see in this rebuttal to Mr. Abdallah, he failed miserably in his response:
http://answer-islam.org/Osamabiblerebuttal1.html
In this detailed but summarized response you see just where Mr. Abdallah contradicted himself over and over in trying to defend his misquotations of the NIV. I even left it short for him to read since he claims that our articles are to long to read. What is also funny is that Osama claims that “the bible does contain errors and contradictions in it” but yet when his contradictory stance on Muhammad is shown in trying to find a prophet in a corrupted book, IT IS NOT CONTRADICTORY BUT MAKES SENSE EVEN THOUGH IT IS CONTRADICTORY. Do you see how stupid this sounds!! Also Osama always says in his links that he refutes or annihilates others, making him judge and jury, on every topic. I have not found one single Muslim apologist backing his stance with the NIV quotations and there are tons of people who read his site. Nobody links to his material nor does any consensus of Islamic scholarship extol his work on this topic. Why? Because, the only person who actually cares about this issue is Osama Abdallah himself. This concludes part 1 to Osama’s link here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/shamoun_slip.htm
We will continue to offer sound responses and rebuttals to Osama’s material. Part two to follow shortly. God Bless.
Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com