On September 13, 1969, (according to this document that Jason Smathers has unearthed) Acar Caner, aged 35 (nearly 36), came to America. At that time, his eldest son (Ergun Caner) was only two years old, though nearly three. Both of these dates/ages are based on an assumption that the birthdays we've been given for Acar Caner and Ergun Caner are correct. Furthermore, if the birthday we've been given for Emir Caner is correct (namely August 1970), it would appear that Emir did not come to America as an unborn child.
Also interesting is the fact that Acar Caner appears to have been granted U.S. citizenship on July 13, 1976, and that he claims he was not out of the U.S. for any more than 6 months at a time between then and (apparently) 1980 or 1981.
Another item of note is the fact that Acar Caner apparently changed his name (from Martin to Mehmet or vice versa is a little unclear to me from this document).
-TurretinFan
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Circumcision Ended Without Scripture?
In the discussion between Matt Slick and Robert Sungenis, Dr. Sungenis made the following comment:
Dr. White provided some responses (as you will hear in the mp3), but I'd like to provide six of my own:
-TurretinFan
In Acts chapter 15, where the debate over circumcision arises. And Peter stands up and says, "We're no longer going to practice circumcision." And he had no Scriptural precedent to do so.(see 53:51 in this mp3 recording of Dr. White's partial review of the discussion)
Dr. White provided some responses (as you will hear in the mp3), but I'd like to provide six of my own:
- The debate in Acts 15 was really a debate over sola fide, which the Judaizers opposed, claiming that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Compare Acts 15:8-9 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
- Peter stood up, but what he stood up to do was to argue for faith alone and against the burden of circumcision: Acts 15:7-11 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
- Peter's comment was not the announcement of a decision. The decision was pronounced by James. Acts 15:13 & 19 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: ... Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: ... And then by all the church at Jerusalem, not just the apostles and elders. Acts 15:22-23 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: ... .
- The decision of the council was specifically directed to Gentile converts, not to Jews. (see the verses in the previous bullets) It was not actually a call to end circumcision, just a recognition that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. Jews continued to be circumcised. Act 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
- Peter's argument itself refers to his experience with Gentiles such as Cornelius. That experience is recorded in Scripture, whether or not an as-yet-incomplete book of Acts had been written. So, the precedent on which Peter relied is in Scripture, although it may not yet have been in Scripture at that time.
- The decision of the church of Jerusalem, however, was based on Scriptural precedent. Specifically, as James explains it we can see the Scriptural precedent, I'll provide cross-references in brackets. Acts 15:15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: [Amos 9:11] that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, [cf. Hosea 3:5] and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. [Amos 9:12] Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. [cf. Isaiah 46:10]
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thomas Road Baptist Church Sermon Extracts
"Declaration, Revolution" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006 (AM)
18:31 So looking in the camera, I said, "Yeah, I'll give you some statements." "So, when did you come over?" "Well, we finally settled in 1978."
"Why I Am Predestined Not to Be A Hyper Calvinist" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006 (PM)
There are a lot of issues with this sermon, but the issues are not autobiographical, as far as I could tell.
"Racism in the Face of Diversity" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church July 30, 2006 (AM)
16:05 I am one - please pay attention - I am one who was raised to hate Israel. As a Muslim, we were taught that the Jews drink the blood of the Palestinian children. I was raised to despise them. In Arabic the speakers in the mosques and the masjids will stand up and say, "We will push them into the peninsula."
"Personal Testimony" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church September 17, 2006 (PM)
9:30 My testimony is no different than yours. Because my testimony shares the exact same thing as yours. It always ends, "and then Jesus Christ saved me." Mine just happens to begin from a position of animosity. I hated you. I am twenty-one generations a Turk. I am the oldest of three sons of an Islamic muezzin. My father, Acar Mehmet Caner, was in my eyes a giant. He was a man that I believed could do anything. He played rugby, soccer, any sport where you could kick somebody else. My father was a man. My father feared nothing but he was devout as a Muslim. And in Turkey, Istanbul, Ismir (sp?) we came America with an express purpose. My father was an architect by trade. And we came to America to build mosques.
We went to Monclova (sp?) Ohio, Toledo - the largest mosque in the Midwest was there. And having received orders, my dad moved us to Columbus, OH, where we began the Islamic foundation on Broad St. That's how I got here.
I learned English here. I learned culture here. But I was raised devout as a Sunni Muslim. And I hated you.
Everything we ever knew about Christians - everything we ever knew about Christianity - we learned from the mosque, the masjid, the madrassa, or our imam. Our training, our Sunday school, our Pastor.
Everything we knew about you, we knew only because we were taught from outside.
I had no contact with Christians - I had no contact with Jews. Because the Koran teaches expressly, Surah 5, take no friends from among the Jews and the Christians for you bring their judgment upon you.
That was my world. We came to America, having lived in countries where we always the majority, and now I was the minority.
We dressed differently, spoke differently, worshiped differently, ate differently, and now we were surrounded by you. This was a difficult adjustment. We were devout.
There are two types of Turk who come to America. There are the devout and then there are the not-so-devout.
Let me lay aside some of your worries. I have never in my life, ever driven a taxi. I don't have a single silk shirt that I wear open to the navel with my fake gold chains turning my neck green entangled in my chest hair. I don't slick back my single eyebrow with my designer impostor perfume. I don't have a basket full of snakes, flying carpet, and I don't work at 7-11. But there are many of our people who do come to this country, and they are not devout. They come here as Muslims casting off Islamic legalism, and then they come to America and they become nothing.
And then I was the second kind. We came suspiciously. We came devout.
Every Muslim on the planet be they Sunni or Suffi, Shia, Ismali, be they Nation of Islam, a subset of the Sunni, be they Wahabi or Alluhit (sp?) - every Muslim knows there are five pillars and six foundations.
There is Abinadab [sic for ...], Salat, Zakat, "Swan" [sic for sawm], Haj.
But all of them can be summarized in one simple concept - work till you're good enough to make it in heaven.
The 23rd chapter of the Koran, Surah 23, verses 102 and 103 say this: he who finds his scales heavy will find perdition, he who finds his scales light will find blessing, paradise.
We are taught that from the moment you are born, your mother takes the fig and rubs it in your mouth, your father whispers the Shahada in your ear. And from that moment, every word, every deed, every desire, every motivation, every act, every will, every thought, every emotion, everything goes either on good scales or on bad scales, so that at the end of your life you you've got to have more good than bad to make it into paradise.
You have to be 51% righteous. It's why we pray five times a day, facing Mecca. It's why we roll out our prayer rug and begin "bismillah ah'rallahim, wa'hamdullah ah'rallahim" [attempted phonetic transcription]
It's why we live by the dietary restrictions of halal and haram. Eating things that are allowable, and avoiding the things that are not allowed - and avoiding pork and avoiding anything that was like lobster and crab - we did not eat these foods because Allah would hold it against us.
And there is only one eternal assurance in Islam - only one eternal absolute. The only people who ever know, according to the words of the Koran - we would read it, kiss it, place it to our foreheads, put it on the highest shelf - according to the Koran, according to the Hadith, the only people who would know where they were going to go. The only people who were absolutely sure were those who died in an act of Jihad, in a signed Fatwa, they were the martyr. It's why now five years following 9-11, it's why there is no shortage of my people willing to get on planes. It's why there is no shortage of us willing to do whatever it takes. It's not just an act of devotion it's an act of desperation.
We fear - we fear - that we will die with the scales unbalanced. We believe that by shedding our own blood and shedding the blood of others, it will get us the one thing that eludes us: forgiveness.
Even this week, the irony is seen. The pope says something that offends the Muslims, he says that - quoting from an Islamic scholar - that paradise is found in the shades of the sword. And they begin to riot. In other words, stop saying we're violent, or we will kill everything you know. That is the most retarded thing I have ever seen the media talk about.
How I found out that my blood was not needed is the point of this story.
It wasn't a massive church. It wasn't a beautiful people. It wasn't a guy on TV hawking Peter and Paul loincloths. It wasn't a magnificent choir.
What reached me for the gospel is a series of anonymous, singularly persistent people. One obnoxious boy who wouldn't shut up. One tiny church. One people.
For three years, Jerry Tackett chased me. I dressed differently, looked differently, yet in Gahanna Lincoln High School he made me his project. Trying to earn an AWANA badge or an RA badge, the guy wouldn't leave me alone. Invited me to everything - invited me to lock-ins, and pizza pig-outs and hot dog hog-outs. And he kept inviting me, and inviting me, and inviting me. And by the way, if you've ever worked a lock-in - I believe it is a tool of the devil. Nothing else would keep me up at 3 a.m. in the morning except trying to find kids hiding in the stairwell trying to make out when I should be asleep. It's the Protestant equivalent of Purgatory.
Three years - no - no - no - no - no - three years - no - no - no. Finally, I give in. Finally, I tell him I will show him. And I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, OH - little church that had one aisle. Little church that had 80 people if everybody was skinny. And they loved me to the cross.
I had never been in a church, never seen other Christians, knew nothing about their service.
I walked in with a Koran in my hand. I walked in thinking I will show them. I sat in the back - eight of them sat with me. The meaner I was, the nicer they were. The more cynical I was - callous, jaded - the more they smiled and overlooked my sin-sickened soul.
It's amazing to me. If you've never been in a Baptist church, it is a bit of an adjustment. It's the reason I'm as non-traditional as I am - I have no baggage. I didn't know when to stand - and to sit. I didn't know what a hymnal was, or the Bible was. I didn't know what a bulletin was, I thought it was the Bible. Some of you still do.
I didn't know when to do anything. Stand, sit, turn around, hug a neck, shake a hand, listen to the choir, grab a baby - it was just so much. Feel the burn - feel the burn - it's Jeezercise. And yet they loved me all the while.
As soon as the service was over, Jerry Tackett dragged me to Clarence Miller - one singular pastor. Clarence Miller had a sixth-grade education. Clarence Miller had sideburns like Elvis. Clarence Miller would wear these green suits with brown piping and he would preach, man, hard and hot.
When he'd get to preaching, I noticed that people would all take their handkerchiefs out, and when they agreed with what he said, they'd wave their handkerchiefs. I thought it was because he was spitting. You see, Clarence used to say if you ain't spittin', sweatin', and slobberin', you ain't preachin'. Man, he'd preach hard. Sometimes he'd preach so hard he'd unclip his tie. But it stayed pinned to his shirt, so it would just flop - right in the front - like that.
Tackett dragged me to Clarence and said, "Clarence - here he is!" (like you had to point out the boy wearing the dress)
(around 20 minutes)
18:31 So looking in the camera, I said, "Yeah, I'll give you some statements." "So, when did you come over?" "Well, we finally settled in 1978."
"Why I Am Predestined Not to Be A Hyper Calvinist" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006 (PM)
There are a lot of issues with this sermon, but the issues are not autobiographical, as far as I could tell.
"Racism in the Face of Diversity" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church July 30, 2006 (AM)
16:05 I am one - please pay attention - I am one who was raised to hate Israel. As a Muslim, we were taught that the Jews drink the blood of the Palestinian children. I was raised to despise them. In Arabic the speakers in the mosques and the masjids will stand up and say, "We will push them into the peninsula."
"Personal Testimony" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church September 17, 2006 (PM)
9:30 My testimony is no different than yours. Because my testimony shares the exact same thing as yours. It always ends, "and then Jesus Christ saved me." Mine just happens to begin from a position of animosity. I hated you. I am twenty-one generations a Turk. I am the oldest of three sons of an Islamic muezzin. My father, Acar Mehmet Caner, was in my eyes a giant. He was a man that I believed could do anything. He played rugby, soccer, any sport where you could kick somebody else. My father was a man. My father feared nothing but he was devout as a Muslim. And in Turkey, Istanbul, Ismir (sp?) we came America with an express purpose. My father was an architect by trade. And we came to America to build mosques.
We went to Monclova (sp?) Ohio, Toledo - the largest mosque in the Midwest was there. And having received orders, my dad moved us to Columbus, OH, where we began the Islamic foundation on Broad St. That's how I got here.
I learned English here. I learned culture here. But I was raised devout as a Sunni Muslim. And I hated you.
Everything we ever knew about Christians - everything we ever knew about Christianity - we learned from the mosque, the masjid, the madrassa, or our imam. Our training, our Sunday school, our Pastor.
Everything we knew about you, we knew only because we were taught from outside.
I had no contact with Christians - I had no contact with Jews. Because the Koran teaches expressly, Surah 5, take no friends from among the Jews and the Christians for you bring their judgment upon you.
That was my world. We came to America, having lived in countries where we always the majority, and now I was the minority.
We dressed differently, spoke differently, worshiped differently, ate differently, and now we were surrounded by you. This was a difficult adjustment. We were devout.
There are two types of Turk who come to America. There are the devout and then there are the not-so-devout.
Let me lay aside some of your worries. I have never in my life, ever driven a taxi. I don't have a single silk shirt that I wear open to the navel with my fake gold chains turning my neck green entangled in my chest hair. I don't slick back my single eyebrow with my designer impostor perfume. I don't have a basket full of snakes, flying carpet, and I don't work at 7-11. But there are many of our people who do come to this country, and they are not devout. They come here as Muslims casting off Islamic legalism, and then they come to America and they become nothing.
And then I was the second kind. We came suspiciously. We came devout.
Every Muslim on the planet be they Sunni or Suffi, Shia, Ismali, be they Nation of Islam, a subset of the Sunni, be they Wahabi or Alluhit (sp?) - every Muslim knows there are five pillars and six foundations.
There is Abinadab [sic for ...], Salat, Zakat, "Swan" [sic for sawm], Haj.
But all of them can be summarized in one simple concept - work till you're good enough to make it in heaven.
The 23rd chapter of the Koran, Surah 23, verses 102 and 103 say this: he who finds his scales heavy will find perdition, he who finds his scales light will find blessing, paradise.
We are taught that from the moment you are born, your mother takes the fig and rubs it in your mouth, your father whispers the Shahada in your ear. And from that moment, every word, every deed, every desire, every motivation, every act, every will, every thought, every emotion, everything goes either on good scales or on bad scales, so that at the end of your life you you've got to have more good than bad to make it into paradise.
You have to be 51% righteous. It's why we pray five times a day, facing Mecca. It's why we roll out our prayer rug and begin "bismillah ah'rallahim, wa'hamdullah ah'rallahim" [attempted phonetic transcription]
It's why we live by the dietary restrictions of halal and haram. Eating things that are allowable, and avoiding the things that are not allowed - and avoiding pork and avoiding anything that was like lobster and crab - we did not eat these foods because Allah would hold it against us.
And there is only one eternal assurance in Islam - only one eternal absolute. The only people who ever know, according to the words of the Koran - we would read it, kiss it, place it to our foreheads, put it on the highest shelf - according to the Koran, according to the Hadith, the only people who would know where they were going to go. The only people who were absolutely sure were those who died in an act of Jihad, in a signed Fatwa, they were the martyr. It's why now five years following 9-11, it's why there is no shortage of my people willing to get on planes. It's why there is no shortage of us willing to do whatever it takes. It's not just an act of devotion it's an act of desperation.
We fear - we fear - that we will die with the scales unbalanced. We believe that by shedding our own blood and shedding the blood of others, it will get us the one thing that eludes us: forgiveness.
Even this week, the irony is seen. The pope says something that offends the Muslims, he says that - quoting from an Islamic scholar - that paradise is found in the shades of the sword. And they begin to riot. In other words, stop saying we're violent, or we will kill everything you know. That is the most retarded thing I have ever seen the media talk about.
How I found out that my blood was not needed is the point of this story.
It wasn't a massive church. It wasn't a beautiful people. It wasn't a guy on TV hawking Peter and Paul loincloths. It wasn't a magnificent choir.
What reached me for the gospel is a series of anonymous, singularly persistent people. One obnoxious boy who wouldn't shut up. One tiny church. One people.
For three years, Jerry Tackett chased me. I dressed differently, looked differently, yet in Gahanna Lincoln High School he made me his project. Trying to earn an AWANA badge or an RA badge, the guy wouldn't leave me alone. Invited me to everything - invited me to lock-ins, and pizza pig-outs and hot dog hog-outs. And he kept inviting me, and inviting me, and inviting me. And by the way, if you've ever worked a lock-in - I believe it is a tool of the devil. Nothing else would keep me up at 3 a.m. in the morning except trying to find kids hiding in the stairwell trying to make out when I should be asleep. It's the Protestant equivalent of Purgatory.
Three years - no - no - no - no - no - three years - no - no - no. Finally, I give in. Finally, I tell him I will show him. And I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, OH - little church that had one aisle. Little church that had 80 people if everybody was skinny. And they loved me to the cross.
I had never been in a church, never seen other Christians, knew nothing about their service.
I walked in with a Koran in my hand. I walked in thinking I will show them. I sat in the back - eight of them sat with me. The meaner I was, the nicer they were. The more cynical I was - callous, jaded - the more they smiled and overlooked my sin-sickened soul.
It's amazing to me. If you've never been in a Baptist church, it is a bit of an adjustment. It's the reason I'm as non-traditional as I am - I have no baggage. I didn't know when to stand - and to sit. I didn't know what a hymnal was, or the Bible was. I didn't know what a bulletin was, I thought it was the Bible. Some of you still do.
I didn't know when to do anything. Stand, sit, turn around, hug a neck, shake a hand, listen to the choir, grab a baby - it was just so much. Feel the burn - feel the burn - it's Jeezercise. And yet they loved me all the while.
As soon as the service was over, Jerry Tackett dragged me to Clarence Miller - one singular pastor. Clarence Miller had a sixth-grade education. Clarence Miller had sideburns like Elvis. Clarence Miller would wear these green suits with brown piping and he would preach, man, hard and hot.
When he'd get to preaching, I noticed that people would all take their handkerchiefs out, and when they agreed with what he said, they'd wave their handkerchiefs. I thought it was because he was spitting. You see, Clarence used to say if you ain't spittin', sweatin', and slobberin', you ain't preachin'. Man, he'd preach hard. Sometimes he'd preach so hard he'd unclip his tie. But it stayed pinned to his shirt, so it would just flop - right in the front - like that.
Tackett dragged me to Clarence and said, "Clarence - here he is!" (like you had to point out the boy wearing the dress)
(around 20 minutes)
Monday, July 12, 2010
Norman Geisler on Lying as a Moral/Ethical Issue
A friend of mine pointed out to me that in his book on Christian Ethics, Norman Geisler seems to call lying a moral and ethical issue (link to sample of book). On page 19, for example, lying is provided as example of an ethical issue which is decided by moral laws. So, it's not clear how Norman Geisler can justify his apparent belief now that the issue of a preacher allegedly lying is not a moral issue.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Is Lying a Moral Issue?
Dr. Norman Geisler seems to have the impression that lying is not a moral issue. Here are some verses that would suggest otherwise.
Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
Ezekiel 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Hosea 4:1-2
Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
Provers 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
- TurretinFan
Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
Ezekiel 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Hosea 4:1-2
Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
Provers 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Zola Levitt - Has Anyone Let Him Know? (Answer: Too Late)
On June 22, 2010 (according to iTunes), Zola Levitt released a podcast (ZL 338 - Signs of the End 2001: "Now A Christian" with Ergun Caner). You can get the mp3 here (link to mp3). It's important to realize that these are claims that were apparently recorded back in 2001 before Dr. Caner joined Liberty University. Why are they still being played? Perhaps no one has bothered to tell Zola Levitt about the issue with Dr. Caner's autobiography.
(UPDATE: As one alert reader noted, it's a little late - Zola Levitt has gone to his grave. Substitute the name of whoever is running his podcast these days.)
Dr. Caner states:
As to (2), if Caner came to America at age 3, how much Christianity could he have been meaningfully exposed to before he came. Combined with (1), it's hard to see how (2) could not be misleading if what Dr. Caner's mother swears is true, is in fact true.
As to (3), see above about (1) and (2). If Caner came at age 3, how is statement (3) not misleading?
As to (4), Injeel is not the Arabic word for "angel" it is the Arabic word for "Gospel." It's possible he was just nervous, but this is not the only time that Dr. Caner made that error. Here's another example. When this example was brought to my attention, I basically just wrote it off - I even tried to defend Dr. Caner about it (see my attempted defense here - and here). Now that I've seen a second example, I think it just goes to show that Dr. Caner isn't that familiar with Arabic.
As to (5), I question whether Dr. Caner's father held a fake funeral service for him - but I lack any proof that Dr. Caner's father did not do that. Perhaps Dr. Caner is telling the truth about this. Perhaps someone who knew the Caners can confirm this?
As to (6), check out the context of the "Islamic Youth Jihad" statement - does it convey the idea that the boys were trained as terrorists? or does it convey some other meaning?
As to (7), while there may not be any one "official" way to cite the hadith, this particular citation format leaves out the name of the collection making these citations similar to the citation "Bible 10:3." (see more discussion here)
As to (8), it's possible that Dr. Caner can sound out the Qur'an phonetically in Arabic, but it's hard to believe his claim to be able to translate it, particularly in view of item (4). It's also unclear how Dr. Geisler can claim, as he has, "He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur’an and speak it in prayer."
I should note that "raised in Sweden" is kind of a strange description if Dr. Caner actually came to America in 1969 at age 3. That would make it sound more like he was raised in America. But, it is not completely clear whether Dr. Geisler has endorsed the 1969 date.
Conclusion
I'm not sure why Zola Levitt is still using this show as a re-run. Perhaps no one has mentioned the Ergun Caner situation to him, or perhaps he really believes that the statements above are all true, justifiable, or excusable.
-TurretinFan
(UPDATE: As one alert reader noted, it's a little late - Zola Levitt has gone to his grave. Substitute the name of whoever is running his podcast these days.)
Dr. Caner states:
- (1:25) "We came to America in 1978"
- (1:29) "Exposed to Christianity for the first time here in America."
- (2:00) "Everything that I had been taught about Christianity and about Christians specifically, just didn't bear out when we came to America. We were taught that you hated us. And coming to America - perhaps in Europe it is a little bit different - it certainly was for me - but coming to America they weren't hateful, they were loving."
- (2:27) "I had lived in fear of the scales for so long, you know the Injeel on both shoulders, writing down the good and the bad ... "
- (2:48) "I was disowned in 1982 - disowned by my father." Zola: "Really? Formally?" Caner: "Oh, Yes yes - just like in the Jewish faith - where there's a funeral service."
- (8:35) "As a young man, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad - as was my brother - both of my brothers. We were in youth groups that were taught these verses of the Hadith."
- (9:07) "Hadith 9:50 says 'no one can be killed for killing an infidel' Hadith 9:57 says 'if a man changes his Islamic religion, kill him.' That's not ambiguous."
- (22:41) "Fine, you don't like what I say, you don't like what I say about Mohamed, you don't like the fact that I speak in Arabic and translate the Qur'an for you -- you know - one of their lines is, 'oh, you don't know - you're just speaking in English.' Well, fine. Bring me the Arabic Qur'an and I'll read it with you. And they don't like that."
As to (2), if Caner came to America at age 3, how much Christianity could he have been meaningfully exposed to before he came. Combined with (1), it's hard to see how (2) could not be misleading if what Dr. Caner's mother swears is true, is in fact true.
As to (3), see above about (1) and (2). If Caner came at age 3, how is statement (3) not misleading?
As to (4), Injeel is not the Arabic word for "angel" it is the Arabic word for "Gospel." It's possible he was just nervous, but this is not the only time that Dr. Caner made that error. Here's another example. When this example was brought to my attention, I basically just wrote it off - I even tried to defend Dr. Caner about it (see my attempted defense here - and here). Now that I've seen a second example, I think it just goes to show that Dr. Caner isn't that familiar with Arabic.
As to (5), I question whether Dr. Caner's father held a fake funeral service for him - but I lack any proof that Dr. Caner's father did not do that. Perhaps Dr. Caner is telling the truth about this. Perhaps someone who knew the Caners can confirm this?
As to (6), check out the context of the "Islamic Youth Jihad" statement - does it convey the idea that the boys were trained as terrorists? or does it convey some other meaning?
As to (7), while there may not be any one "official" way to cite the hadith, this particular citation format leaves out the name of the collection making these citations similar to the citation "Bible 10:3." (see more discussion here)
As to (8), it's possible that Dr. Caner can sound out the Qur'an phonetically in Arabic, but it's hard to believe his claim to be able to translate it, particularly in view of item (4). It's also unclear how Dr. Geisler can claim, as he has, "He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur’an and speak it in prayer."
I should note that "raised in Sweden" is kind of a strange description if Dr. Caner actually came to America in 1969 at age 3. That would make it sound more like he was raised in America. But, it is not completely clear whether Dr. Geisler has endorsed the 1969 date.
Conclusion
I'm not sure why Zola Levitt is still using this show as a re-run. Perhaps no one has mentioned the Ergun Caner situation to him, or perhaps he really believes that the statements above are all true, justifiable, or excusable.
-TurretinFan
"Living Dead" Themed Movies
My previous post included a video clip of Ergun Caner talking about an alleged experience as a teenager and new arrival to America, watching a film with the theme of the "living dead."
An alert reader pointed out to me that the video shows materials related to the film, "Return of the Living Dead," which came out in 1985. That's not when Dr. Caner came to America, even according to any of his own accounts.
There is, however, another film that did come out with the same theme, closer to when Dr. Caner came to America: "Night of the Living Dead," which came out in 1968. For those who think that Dr. Caner came to America from Turkey in the late 1970's, there's alternatively "Dawn of the Dead," which came out when Dr. Caner was nearly a teenager, in 1978.
As far as I know, Dr. Caner was not involved in producing the video clips, beyond recording himself talking. So, I'm certainly not claiming that Dr. Caner suggested the graphic art for his video or that Dr. Caner himself said he watched "Return of the Living Dead" as a new arrival.
Intead, the troubling part of the video seems to be his statement, at the very beginning:
"When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that video can still be seen at TrueLife.org (link to page).
Was Dr. Caner a teenage boy when he first came to America? The sworn affidavit of Dr. Caner's mother strongly suggests a negative answer to that question. That affidavit is an affidavit dated 31 July 1975, when Dr. Ergun Caner was about eight years old. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not living in Ankara or along the Iraqi border at that time. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not getting misconceptions about the USA by watching TV in Turkey at that time. If that affidavit is true, though, how can Dr. Geisler continue to defend Ergun Caner's remarks? Who knows!
-TurretinFan
An alert reader pointed out to me that the video shows materials related to the film, "Return of the Living Dead," which came out in 1985. That's not when Dr. Caner came to America, even according to any of his own accounts.
There is, however, another film that did come out with the same theme, closer to when Dr. Caner came to America: "Night of the Living Dead," which came out in 1968. For those who think that Dr. Caner came to America from Turkey in the late 1970's, there's alternatively "Dawn of the Dead," which came out when Dr. Caner was nearly a teenager, in 1978.
As far as I know, Dr. Caner was not involved in producing the video clips, beyond recording himself talking. So, I'm certainly not claiming that Dr. Caner suggested the graphic art for his video or that Dr. Caner himself said he watched "Return of the Living Dead" as a new arrival.
Intead, the troubling part of the video seems to be his statement, at the very beginning:
"When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that video can still be seen at TrueLife.org (link to page).
Was Dr. Caner a teenage boy when he first came to America? The sworn affidavit of Dr. Caner's mother strongly suggests a negative answer to that question. That affidavit is an affidavit dated 31 July 1975, when Dr. Ergun Caner was about eight years old. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not living in Ankara or along the Iraqi border at that time. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not getting misconceptions about the USA by watching TV in Turkey at that time. If that affidavit is true, though, how can Dr. Geisler continue to defend Ergun Caner's remarks? Who knows!
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Rebutting Norman Geisler
Norman Geisler has still not given up on defending Dr. Ergun Caner (link to his further defense), stating that "a number of unjustified attacks have come to my attention." He has responded with 7 points to the 9 numbered points in my previous post (link to my previous post), collapsing four of my numbered points into two of his and ignoring the last (unnumbered) point about the fact that Dr. Ergun Caner's answer on Ramadan cannot match the facts.
Dr. Geisler also states: "Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue." Is speaking the truth a moral issue? If not, then I fully agree with Dr. Geisler. Who has alleged any "major doctrinal" issue?
I appreciate the fact that Dr. Geisler has taken the time to respond to my post. I offer the following comments matching the numbers of his post:
1) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Been Born in Istanbul, Turkey
Dr. Geisler somehow thinks that a person can understandably misstate their birthplace from their actual birth country (Sweden) to the homeland of their ancestors (Turkey). Dr. Geisler's justification is that "Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry."
How many people so strongly identify with their father that they claim to have been born where their father was, even if their father was born over a thousand miles away from where they were born? Is this normal behavior in Dr. Norman Geisler's book?
2) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi Border
Dr. Geisler alleges that the accusation relating to Dr. Caner claiming to live in Ankara and then along the Iraqi border is - well - here are his words: "This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics." (grammar and/or syntax errors are from Geisler's page)
In fact, however, there is evidence. Here is the mp3 (link to mp3). When you get about 10 minutes into the mp3, tell me whether you hear this:
Instead focus on what Dr. Caner said: "I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most part of my life, on the Iraqi border." How would visits to Turkey, even if they happened, be the same thing as living in Ankara or living along the Iraqi border?
And even if such visits could somehow count for that, how could they be considered a legitimate justification for saying: "for the most part of my life"?
My friend Dr. White (who strongly identifies with his Scottish ancestry) sometimes travels to Scotland and England. If he said in public, "I lived in London, but then I lived toward the north for the most part of my life, on the border of Scotland and England," (based on one or more of his trips) would that be the truth? Do normal people talk that way? Or would that be an embellishment aimed at making Dr. White sound more Scottish than he actually is? It's easy to apply common sense and answer those questions.
Now, apply common sense to Dr. Caner's statement and see whether Dr. Geisler's answer holds any water.
3) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Received Misconceptions about the USA from Turkish Television Prior to Immigration to the USA
Dr. Geisler claims that the statements about watching the Dukes of Hazzard in Turkey and getting a misconception about America from them was just a joke and was always taken as such. Listen to that same mp3, for which I provided a link above. The Dukes of Hazzard bit comes right after the comment about living "for the most part of" his life in Turkey. Was the part about growing up in Turkey also supposed to be a joke? Or did the two statements that appear to be untrue statements serve to work together to create a false impression that Caner came to America at 15 (or 13) rather than at 3?
Dr. Geisler also claims that Dr. Caner has been using this anecdote for "more than a decade." I cannot speak to the truth or falsehood of Dr. Geisler's claim in this regard. He provides no evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote more than a decade ago, and I cannot seem to find any evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote before Dr. Caner started referring to himself as "Ergun Mehmet Caner" (is that his real name or is that more of Dr. Caner strongly identifying with his ancestry?). Please keep in mind that "more than a decade" would mean that Dr. Caner used this anecdote before July 6, 2000. Can Dr. Geisler substantiate this claim?
Was the context of the anecdote the same back then? Perhaps we will never know. It may be very hard to find any recordings of Dr. Caner from back then using this same anecdote.
As for whether it was meant to be taken literally, compare the lead-off story in this presentation:
"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com. Listen for when the audience begins laughing at his claim regarding getting the Andy Griffith show in Turkey and thinking that all of America was like Mayberry. What does he say - does he say "it's true"? And when he gets to the part about watching Georgia Wrestling in Istanbul, does he say, "this is a little embarrassing, but it's true" and then does he go on to claim that he would get this wrestling show every two weeks in Istanbul for two hours, even specifying the channel?
That particular version of the story about watching TV in Turkey doesn't include the Dukes of Hazzard - so it is harder (probably next to impossible) to prove that the story is not true. But does Dr. Geisler believe it? Is it a credible story? (in light of what Dr. Caner seems to now admit)
4) The Three Possible Dates of Caner's Citizenship (1978, 1982, or 1984)
On the issue of when Dr. Caner became a citizen, Dr. Geisler simply asserts "It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978." Dr. Geisler, however, provides no documentation to support the claim that Dr. Caner became a citizen then.
Dr. Geisler does not explain why the biography of Dr. Caner at TrueLife.org states:
By the way, who told the folks at TrueLife.org that Caner's parents, plural, were Turkish? Who told them that Caner immigrated in 1979?
There are many possibilities about where the data on that bio may have come from. It may have come from someone who was unaware of the "well known" data that Dr. Geisler relies upon without providing us with any documentation. Another possibility is that it came from the man in this video: (UPDATE: TrueLife.org seems to have disabled both direct access to the video and embedding for the video. You can still view the video on TrueLife.org's website for now.)I'm talking about the man who in the video above says, "When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that's a video one can find at TrueLife.org (link to page).
Dr. Geisler, please tell us: was Dr. Caner telling the truth in that clip or not?
Dr. Geisler further states: "No intent to deceive existed, nor has it been established by this conflation of dates." Dr. Geisler is, of course, entitled to his opinion about what the evidence of the misstatement(s?) proves.
Dr. Geisler further writes: "Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures (which are without error), then any Christian pressing this charge would, by the same logic, have to impugn the Bible as well (see The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 40)." The gumption involved in comparing to Caner to Scripture is shocking. In any event, the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture did not get confused about dates and did not engage in conflation. Sorry, Dr. Geisler. Dr. Caner is not comparable to the Bible on this. I hope that Dr. Geisler has a better answer to alleged Biblical contradictions than he gives with respect to the Caner scandal.
By the way, I don't doubt that Dr. Caner has naturalized and become a U.S. citizen. I don't even doubt that there is somewhere a certificate to that effect. However, I do suspect (this is just a guess on my part) that the certificate does not say "Ergun Mehmet Caner." Does Dr. Geisler think that the name on the certificate is that name? Or does Dr. Geisler think the name on the certificate is "Ergun Michael Caner"?
5) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Worn "Keffiyeh"
Dr. Geisler provides a very low resolution photo allegedly of Dr. Caner, as a boy, wearing some sort of hat at some sort of event. It's so low resolution that it is hard to make out a face, but it could be the same boy shown in these pictures (link). Saying that this hat, of whatever kind it is, is a "keffiyeh" (see also here) is about as accurate as saying it is a "kippah." After all, both are names of hats, and both seem - on their face - to have etymological connection to a linguistic root relating to the concept of covering (the former in Arabic, the latter in Hebrew).
Regardless, the hat in the photo that Dr. Geisler has provided (allegedly via Emir Caner) does not show what would appear to qualify as a keffiyeh. Furthermore, of course, one wonders whether - even if Dr. Caner had worn a keffiyeh at a party once whether he was 10 (or so) - that would justify his comments.
Let me provide some examples of the comments I'm talking about.
"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).
Here are a few of the claims from that address:
Another example:
"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).
(23:35) We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions.
Again, would wearing keffiyeh once at a party justify that kind of comment? or does that kind of comment suggest to the reader that wearing keffiyeh was the normal, ordinary dress of Caner and his family?
6) Date of Caner's Conversion and Date of Emir's Conversion
With respect to November 4, 1982, being the alleged conversion date, Dr. Geisler states: "There is some confusion about the exact year." No kidding!
Dr. Geisler argues, "Given that Ergun was converted in 1982 (as he claims) ... " but why should we take that as a given? Why not "Given that Emir was converted in 1982 as both Ergun and Emir said in their book, Unveiling Islam?"
One other question: Dr. Caner allegedly was called to the ministry in 1982. Is that supposed to be sometime between November 4, 1982, and December 31, 1982? I note that in Dr. Geisler's response he explains away the 1982 citizenship date on the basis that: "The other date [referring to 1982] is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony." Anything is possible, I guess!
7) Dr. Caner's Claim that His Father had "Many Wives" and that Dr. Caner had/has "half-brothers"
Dr. Geisler claims:
"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com
(around 21:26 into the sermon) "In my family, my father had many wives. My father had many half-brother and sis--- I have many half-brothers and sisters. Our family very rarely got together."
Again - is "two" considered "many"?
Another example:
"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).
(around 43:10 into the sermon) "My father had other wives. My father died in '99, never accepted Jesus. I have half-brothers and sisters who don't know Jesus."
Now, are those two instances both instances where Dr. Caner was just speaking quickly and called his brothers half-brothers? How could that be? Dr. Caner surely doesn't deny that his brothers know Jesus. And furthermore, in the first instance, Dr. Caner was correcting himself.
And what about the claim to "other wives"? Even if "many" can mean "two" (a very unusual use, I think you'll agree) how can one other wife equal "other wives"?
Conclusion
It's very saddening for me to see Dr. Geisler continue to try to defend Dr. Caner. My opinion is that Dr. Geisler is just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. His opinion is that Dr. Caner "is a devout zealous believer who lives a life in obedience to Christ and who works diligently to extend his kingdom." That may well be true - I don't recall denying that, and yet Dr. Caner may have made a significant number of statements about his autobiography that are not completely true and that, taken together, paint a picture of his past that is not completely accurate. Was this done intentionally? People will have an opinion about that, based on drawing inferences from the number of misstatements, the theme of the misstatements, and the frequency of the misstatements.
There's one other small issue I'd like to address. Dr. Geisler writes: "a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym. This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers." Dr. Geisler is misapplying this principle.
Dr. Caner has a right to confront the witnesses against him. I'm not one of the witnesses. I don't claim any special knowledge, and I have provided folks with documentation for what I have said. Everything I say without giving documentation for it should be disregarded. All of my opinions should be considered as having absolutely no weight in this matter.
Consider instead the documentation. What reasonable opinion is formed based on consideration of the evidence? Is it an opinion that Dr. Caner embellished or is it an opinion that Dr. Caner fully honored the truth on every occasion?
- TurretinFan
Dr. Geisler also states: "Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue." Is speaking the truth a moral issue? If not, then I fully agree with Dr. Geisler. Who has alleged any "major doctrinal" issue?
I appreciate the fact that Dr. Geisler has taken the time to respond to my post. I offer the following comments matching the numbers of his post:
1) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Been Born in Istanbul, Turkey
Dr. Geisler somehow thinks that a person can understandably misstate their birthplace from their actual birth country (Sweden) to the homeland of their ancestors (Turkey). Dr. Geisler's justification is that "Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry."
How many people so strongly identify with their father that they claim to have been born where their father was, even if their father was born over a thousand miles away from where they were born? Is this normal behavior in Dr. Norman Geisler's book?
2) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi Border
Dr. Geisler alleges that the accusation relating to Dr. Caner claiming to live in Ankara and then along the Iraqi border is - well - here are his words: "This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics." (grammar and/or syntax errors are from Geisler's page)
In fact, however, there is evidence. Here is the mp3 (link to mp3). When you get about 10 minutes into the mp3, tell me whether you hear this:
Coming to America, the only thing that I understood, I was fifteen when we came, the only thing - or - thirteen when we came, the only thing that I understood about American culture, I got from American television. And the only television that we were allowed to watch was the television that was - that passed the conscriptions of the censors in Turkey. I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most fpart of my life, on the Iraqi border.Dr. Geisler speculates thus:
Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times. Later, he was along the Iraqi border as he said he was. It should not be deemed strange that Ergun has spent time in Turkey. After all, he has a Turkish father and was a Turkish citizen who came to America on a Turkish passport.Please tell me whether that matches what Dr. Caner said. Leave aside for the moment the papers from the divorce decree that (on paper) prevented Dr. Caner from traveling ("In no event and under no circumstances shall either party hereto cause or allow any of the minor children of the parties to leave or be taken from the Continental Borders of the United States of America." [1978]). After all, maybe the parties ignored that, or maybe the alleged travel to Turkey took place before that.
Instead focus on what Dr. Caner said: "I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most part of my life, on the Iraqi border." How would visits to Turkey, even if they happened, be the same thing as living in Ankara or living along the Iraqi border?
And even if such visits could somehow count for that, how could they be considered a legitimate justification for saying: "for the most part of my life"?
My friend Dr. White (who strongly identifies with his Scottish ancestry) sometimes travels to Scotland and England. If he said in public, "I lived in London, but then I lived toward the north for the most part of my life, on the border of Scotland and England," (based on one or more of his trips) would that be the truth? Do normal people talk that way? Or would that be an embellishment aimed at making Dr. White sound more Scottish than he actually is? It's easy to apply common sense and answer those questions.
Now, apply common sense to Dr. Caner's statement and see whether Dr. Geisler's answer holds any water.
3) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Received Misconceptions about the USA from Turkish Television Prior to Immigration to the USA
Dr. Geisler claims that the statements about watching the Dukes of Hazzard in Turkey and getting a misconception about America from them was just a joke and was always taken as such. Listen to that same mp3, for which I provided a link above. The Dukes of Hazzard bit comes right after the comment about living "for the most part of" his life in Turkey. Was the part about growing up in Turkey also supposed to be a joke? Or did the two statements that appear to be untrue statements serve to work together to create a false impression that Caner came to America at 15 (or 13) rather than at 3?
Dr. Geisler also claims that Dr. Caner has been using this anecdote for "more than a decade." I cannot speak to the truth or falsehood of Dr. Geisler's claim in this regard. He provides no evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote more than a decade ago, and I cannot seem to find any evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote before Dr. Caner started referring to himself as "Ergun Mehmet Caner" (is that his real name or is that more of Dr. Caner strongly identifying with his ancestry?). Please keep in mind that "more than a decade" would mean that Dr. Caner used this anecdote before July 6, 2000. Can Dr. Geisler substantiate this claim?
Was the context of the anecdote the same back then? Perhaps we will never know. It may be very hard to find any recordings of Dr. Caner from back then using this same anecdote.
As for whether it was meant to be taken literally, compare the lead-off story in this presentation:
"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com. Listen for when the audience begins laughing at his claim regarding getting the Andy Griffith show in Turkey and thinking that all of America was like Mayberry. What does he say - does he say "it's true"? And when he gets to the part about watching Georgia Wrestling in Istanbul, does he say, "this is a little embarrassing, but it's true" and then does he go on to claim that he would get this wrestling show every two weeks in Istanbul for two hours, even specifying the channel?
That particular version of the story about watching TV in Turkey doesn't include the Dukes of Hazzard - so it is harder (probably next to impossible) to prove that the story is not true. But does Dr. Geisler believe it? Is it a credible story? (in light of what Dr. Caner seems to now admit)
4) The Three Possible Dates of Caner's Citizenship (1978, 1982, or 1984)
On the issue of when Dr. Caner became a citizen, Dr. Geisler simply asserts "It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978." Dr. Geisler, however, provides no documentation to support the claim that Dr. Caner became a citizen then.
Dr. Geisler does not explain why the biography of Dr. Caner at TrueLife.org states:
Ergun was born in Stockholm, Sweden to turkish parents and in 1979 immigrated to the United States with his parents, grandmother, and two brothers. Ergun became an American citizen in 1984 and currently resides in Lynchburg, VA with his wife and two sons.(source)
By the way, who told the folks at TrueLife.org that Caner's parents, plural, were Turkish? Who told them that Caner immigrated in 1979?
There are many possibilities about where the data on that bio may have come from. It may have come from someone who was unaware of the "well known" data that Dr. Geisler relies upon without providing us with any documentation. Another possibility is that it came from the man in this video: (UPDATE: TrueLife.org seems to have disabled both direct access to the video and embedding for the video. You can still view the video on TrueLife.org's website for now.)I'm talking about the man who in the video above says, "When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that's a video one can find at TrueLife.org (link to page).
Dr. Geisler, please tell us: was Dr. Caner telling the truth in that clip or not?
Dr. Geisler further states: "No intent to deceive existed, nor has it been established by this conflation of dates." Dr. Geisler is, of course, entitled to his opinion about what the evidence of the misstatement(s?) proves.
Dr. Geisler further writes: "Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures (which are without error), then any Christian pressing this charge would, by the same logic, have to impugn the Bible as well (see The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 40)." The gumption involved in comparing to Caner to Scripture is shocking. In any event, the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture did not get confused about dates and did not engage in conflation. Sorry, Dr. Geisler. Dr. Caner is not comparable to the Bible on this. I hope that Dr. Geisler has a better answer to alleged Biblical contradictions than he gives with respect to the Caner scandal.
By the way, I don't doubt that Dr. Caner has naturalized and become a U.S. citizen. I don't even doubt that there is somewhere a certificate to that effect. However, I do suspect (this is just a guess on my part) that the certificate does not say "Ergun Mehmet Caner." Does Dr. Geisler think that the name on the certificate is that name? Or does Dr. Geisler think the name on the certificate is "Ergun Michael Caner"?
5) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Worn "Keffiyeh"
Dr. Geisler provides a very low resolution photo allegedly of Dr. Caner, as a boy, wearing some sort of hat at some sort of event. It's so low resolution that it is hard to make out a face, but it could be the same boy shown in these pictures (link). Saying that this hat, of whatever kind it is, is a "keffiyeh" (see also here) is about as accurate as saying it is a "kippah." After all, both are names of hats, and both seem - on their face - to have etymological connection to a linguistic root relating to the concept of covering (the former in Arabic, the latter in Hebrew).
Regardless, the hat in the photo that Dr. Geisler has provided (allegedly via Emir Caner) does not show what would appear to qualify as a keffiyeh. Furthermore, of course, one wonders whether - even if Dr. Caner had worn a keffiyeh at a party once whether he was 10 (or so) - that would justify his comments.
Let me provide some examples of the comments I'm talking about.
"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).
Here are a few of the claims from that address:
- at about 5:50 "came to this country in my teens"
- at about 6:50 "I did wear keffiyeh"
- at about 7:30 "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes"
- at 49:30 "I always lived in majority-Muslim countries and then I came to America"
- at 49:42 "He [Caner's father] had many wives"
Another example:
"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).
(23:35) We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions.
Again, would wearing keffiyeh once at a party justify that kind of comment? or does that kind of comment suggest to the reader that wearing keffiyeh was the normal, ordinary dress of Caner and his family?
6) Date of Caner's Conversion and Date of Emir's Conversion
With respect to November 4, 1982, being the alleged conversion date, Dr. Geisler states: "There is some confusion about the exact year." No kidding!
Dr. Geisler argues, "Given that Ergun was converted in 1982 (as he claims) ... " but why should we take that as a given? Why not "Given that Emir was converted in 1982 as both Ergun and Emir said in their book, Unveiling Islam?"
One other question: Dr. Caner allegedly was called to the ministry in 1982. Is that supposed to be sometime between November 4, 1982, and December 31, 1982? I note that in Dr. Geisler's response he explains away the 1982 citizenship date on the basis that: "The other date [referring to 1982] is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony." Anything is possible, I guess!
7) Dr. Caner's Claim that His Father had "Many Wives" and that Dr. Caner had/has "half-brothers"
Dr. Geisler claims:
Ergun’s father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. He had three sons by his first wife (Ergun and his two brothers). So, Ergun has two full brothers and two step-sisters (from his father’s second wife). While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his “half” brothers. This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive. After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn’t claim to have ten brothers or sisters!Dr. Geisler does not address how two wives is supposed to be "many." Also, Dr. Geisler is not painting a complete picture when he says, "While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his 'half' brothers. " I don't know what one occasion Dr. Geisler is thinking about. Here are two occasions where Dr. Caner referred to his "half-brothers" and let's see whether Dr. Caner means his actual brothers:
"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com
(around 21:26 into the sermon) "In my family, my father had many wives. My father had many half-brother and sis--- I have many half-brothers and sisters. Our family very rarely got together."
Again - is "two" considered "many"?
Another example:
"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).
(around 43:10 into the sermon) "My father had other wives. My father died in '99, never accepted Jesus. I have half-brothers and sisters who don't know Jesus."
Now, are those two instances both instances where Dr. Caner was just speaking quickly and called his brothers half-brothers? How could that be? Dr. Caner surely doesn't deny that his brothers know Jesus. And furthermore, in the first instance, Dr. Caner was correcting himself.
And what about the claim to "other wives"? Even if "many" can mean "two" (a very unusual use, I think you'll agree) how can one other wife equal "other wives"?
Conclusion
It's very saddening for me to see Dr. Geisler continue to try to defend Dr. Caner. My opinion is that Dr. Geisler is just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. His opinion is that Dr. Caner "is a devout zealous believer who lives a life in obedience to Christ and who works diligently to extend his kingdom." That may well be true - I don't recall denying that, and yet Dr. Caner may have made a significant number of statements about his autobiography that are not completely true and that, taken together, paint a picture of his past that is not completely accurate. Was this done intentionally? People will have an opinion about that, based on drawing inferences from the number of misstatements, the theme of the misstatements, and the frequency of the misstatements.
There's one other small issue I'd like to address. Dr. Geisler writes: "a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym. This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers." Dr. Geisler is misapplying this principle.
Dr. Caner has a right to confront the witnesses against him. I'm not one of the witnesses. I don't claim any special knowledge, and I have provided folks with documentation for what I have said. Everything I say without giving documentation for it should be disregarded. All of my opinions should be considered as having absolutely no weight in this matter.
Consider instead the documentation. What reasonable opinion is formed based on consideration of the evidence? Is it an opinion that Dr. Caner embellished or is it an opinion that Dr. Caner fully honored the truth on every occasion?
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Biologos is Not "One of Us"
Hast thou not known?
Hast thou not heard,
That the everlasting God,
The LORD,
The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Fainteth not, neither is weary?
There is no searching of his understanding.
(Isaiah 40:28)
Hast thou not heard,
That the everlasting God,
The LORD,
The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Fainteth not, neither is weary?
There is no searching of his understanding.
(Isaiah 40:28)
Lest there be any uncertainty, groups like the Biologos forum that deny the central Christian tenet of Creation are not "one of us." Their message is not the Christian message, indeed their message is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture and is a direct attack on the fundamentals of the faith.
I realize that there can be saved people who are, for a time, deluded by various false teachers, and the men who are promoting theistic evolution at the Biologos forum are false teachers, teaching the traditions of men rather than the Word of God.
To those who do truly believe and accept the Word of God, hear this and depart from among the men of the Biologos forum!
Our gospel begins thus:
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Our Bible begins thus:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Our God declares:
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Our God made us this way:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
We labor under this curse:
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
We pray to God with prayers like these:
Hebrew 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
He hears our Prayers:
Psalm 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Our fourth Commandment states:
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
And we preach this coming Judgment:
Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
To those at Biologos who have abandoned the truths of Scripture, be warned! The judgment of Romans 1 is at your doorstep.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
(Romans 1:25)
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
(Romans 1:25)
-TurretinFan
Dearborn Evangelism Outrage Update
David Wood has a message for the Chief of Police in Dearborn, MI, where Christian evangelists were allegedly persecuted for evangelizing (link to message). I don't mean this link as an endorsement of anything or anyone. I think it is important for folks who may only have heard the Muslim side of the story to hear the side of the arrested evangelists. If the allegations are true, there is a serious problem in Dearborn.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Some Things that Dr. Geisler Overlooked
Dr. Geisler provided a number of items of response in his "defense" of Dr. Ergun Caner. I'd like to highlight a few additional items that Dr. Geisler seems to have overlooked. These are some troubling issues in addition to the many that Dr. Geisler identified. I don't know whether Dr. Geisler's "defense" of Dr. Caner intentionally omitted these, or he dealt with them and I missed it, or whether he accidentally omitted them. I suspect that the latter is the case.
I wonder whether Dr. Geisler would care to let us know how Dr. Caner is innocent of wrong-doing with respect to the following issues. Please note that I'm not trying to say that these are things that have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm saying that these are concerns that have been raised, and I haven't seen a clear answer that vindicates Dr. Caner from himself or any of his supporters with respect to any of these.
For ease of reference for those who are replying, I've avoided restarting the number of the troubling issues within each of the major sections.
I. Birth, Place, and Manner in which He Grew Up
1. Claimed to have been Born in Istanbul?
As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul. Most of the rest of the evidence that anyone has brought forward shows that Dr. Caner was born in (or around) Stockholm, Sweden. How is the statement regarding Istanbul a true statement or an honest mistake?
2. Lived in Ankara and Along Iraqi Border?
As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner has claimed that he lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi border. Are those an honest mistake for some other place that Dr. Caner lived? If so, which place was he thinking of?
3. Watched Dukes of Hazzard and longed to marry Daisy Duke while growing up in Turkey?
As documented here (link to documentation) (second instance), Dr. Caner has claimed that while he was living in Turkey he got misconceptions about America by watching the Dukes of Hazzard. How is that somehow an honest mistake or simple misstatement? Please bear in mind that it is not possible that he watched the show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" before it began to show in 1979 (link to documentation).
4. Citizenship in 1978?
Dr. Geisler claims (he does not identify the source of his data) that Dr. Caner became a citizen in 1978. Why is it that at least one seemingly official biography of Caner indicates he became a citizen in 1984 - link to bio with colorful photo of Caner and Dr. Caner himself has claimed to have gained his citizenship in 1982 - see his article "Hatriotism." Which of the three stories, if any, is the truth?
Or is the citizenship-in-1978 claim just an excuse for apparently untrue comments like this one: "In 1978, his family moved to the United States so his father, an architect, could build a Mosque in Columbus, Ohio." (which STILL appears on Dr. Caner's blog as of 5 July 2010 - note that this comment appears to be an English translation of an article originally written in Korean, thus it has some really bizarre comments like: "His father was somewhat similar to an Islamic priest, a scholar of an Islamic sect called Ulima.")
5. Claims to have worn "a keffiyeh"
As documented here (first example)(second example), Dr. Caner has claimed that before his conversion he wore a "keffiyeh." The photo evidence we have of him, however, almost always shows him bareheaded (link to an amusing exception). Did he hide the keffiyeh when photos were being taken? (this example does not count)
II. Date of Conversion and Connection to Brothers' Conversions
6. November 4, 1982?
Dr. Ergun Caner has identified the date of his conversion as November 4, 1982 (example). However, his book, Unveiling Islam, gives that as the date for Emir Caner's conversion and indicates that Emir was saved "the following year" after Ergun. (Unveiling Islam, p. 19) How is this possible?
7. Relationship to Brothers' Conversions
Dr. Caner seems to have stated several accounts regarding the relationship of his conversion to that of his brothers. One account is: "that day my father disowned me, but both of my brothers accepted Christ" another is that Erdem was saved in the basement of "their home" and that "the following year" Ergun invited Emir to a revival service at which Emir was saved. Another account is that "a year later" than his own conversion, his brothers came to Christ. (link to documentation of these) In another account, his brothers get saved when Caner preaches his first sermon (see documentation here) How are these honest mistakes or somehow all reconcilable truths?
III. Claims About His Family
8. "Many Wives" of his father vs. Two Wives of his father
As documented here (link to documentation) Dr. Caner has claimed that his father had "many wives" when the evidence suggests that his father had two wives, one at a time.
9. "Half-brothers" that can't be found
As documented here (link to documentation - second source) Dr. Caner has claimed that he has half-brothers, sons presumably of those "many wives" that his father had. We can find record of two half-sisters by the the one second wife we can locate, but no half-brothers.
Conclusion
These are just a few of the issues that Dr. Geisler did not address, at least I couldn't find them addressed, in his recent "defense" of Dr. Caner. May I respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler is simply not familiar with the troubling evidence. In view of this apparently new evidence that has come to light, is Dr. Geisler willing to say, "Upon further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Ergun Caner did indeed embellish his autobiography," or will Dr. Geisler come up with some new justification for these documented states made either by Caner himself or by seemingly official websites?
Finally, as a tenth troubling issue, let me highlight the issue of Ramadan being "forty days" long according to Dr. Caner on multiple occasions (link to documentation). Dr. Geisler has tried to say that Dr. Caner has some justification of this. I suspect that what Dr. Geisler has read is similar to the material that the "Fake Ex-Muslims" site attributes to Dr. Caner here (link to site). That documentation alleges that there are some tiny groups of Islam that do fast for 40 days. Let's take that explanation as completely 100% true without actually investigating it. Does that being true justify this comment:
"We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions." (link to documentation)
Does that claim about a couple tiny sects of Islam fasting for 40 days justify the claim that the "lunar month" of Ramadan is forty days as documented in this video clip?
Or is the attempt to find a few tiny branches of Islam an attempt to cover up the glaring error of saying that Ramadan is 40 days long, when it is actually a lunar month of 29 or 30 days long?
I'm asking the questions, because I would like to believe that the issue is simply that Dr. Geisler is only familiar with the charges and Dr. Caner's private responses to the charges, and that Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence itself or with a variety of the charges for which it would appear that Dr. Caner and his supporters have no good answer. Will Dr. Geisler respond? Who knows! I would encourage my friends to give Dr. Geisler some time to consider the evidence and respond before assuming that he will simply do what other of Dr. Caner's supporters have done and attack the messenger.
-TurretinFan
I wonder whether Dr. Geisler would care to let us know how Dr. Caner is innocent of wrong-doing with respect to the following issues. Please note that I'm not trying to say that these are things that have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm saying that these are concerns that have been raised, and I haven't seen a clear answer that vindicates Dr. Caner from himself or any of his supporters with respect to any of these.
For ease of reference for those who are replying, I've avoided restarting the number of the troubling issues within each of the major sections.
I. Birth, Place, and Manner in which He Grew Up
1. Claimed to have been Born in Istanbul?
As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner claimed to have been born in Istanbul. Most of the rest of the evidence that anyone has brought forward shows that Dr. Caner was born in (or around) Stockholm, Sweden. How is the statement regarding Istanbul a true statement or an honest mistake?
2. Lived in Ankara and Along Iraqi Border?
As documented here (link to documentation), Dr. Caner has claimed that he lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi border. Are those an honest mistake for some other place that Dr. Caner lived? If so, which place was he thinking of?
3. Watched Dukes of Hazzard and longed to marry Daisy Duke while growing up in Turkey?
As documented here (link to documentation) (second instance), Dr. Caner has claimed that while he was living in Turkey he got misconceptions about America by watching the Dukes of Hazzard. How is that somehow an honest mistake or simple misstatement? Please bear in mind that it is not possible that he watched the show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" before it began to show in 1979 (link to documentation).
4. Citizenship in 1978?
Dr. Geisler claims (he does not identify the source of his data) that Dr. Caner became a citizen in 1978. Why is it that at least one seemingly official biography of Caner indicates he became a citizen in 1984 - link to bio with colorful photo of Caner and Dr. Caner himself has claimed to have gained his citizenship in 1982 - see his article "Hatriotism." Which of the three stories, if any, is the truth?
Or is the citizenship-in-1978 claim just an excuse for apparently untrue comments like this one: "In 1978, his family moved to the United States so his father, an architect, could build a Mosque in Columbus, Ohio." (which STILL appears on Dr. Caner's blog as of 5 July 2010 - note that this comment appears to be an English translation of an article originally written in Korean, thus it has some really bizarre comments like: "His father was somewhat similar to an Islamic priest, a scholar of an Islamic sect called Ulima.")
5. Claims to have worn "a keffiyeh"
As documented here (first example)(second example), Dr. Caner has claimed that before his conversion he wore a "keffiyeh." The photo evidence we have of him, however, almost always shows him bareheaded (link to an amusing exception). Did he hide the keffiyeh when photos were being taken? (this example does not count)
II. Date of Conversion and Connection to Brothers' Conversions
6. November 4, 1982?
Dr. Ergun Caner has identified the date of his conversion as November 4, 1982 (example). However, his book, Unveiling Islam, gives that as the date for Emir Caner's conversion and indicates that Emir was saved "the following year" after Ergun. (Unveiling Islam, p. 19) How is this possible?
7. Relationship to Brothers' Conversions
Dr. Caner seems to have stated several accounts regarding the relationship of his conversion to that of his brothers. One account is: "that day my father disowned me, but both of my brothers accepted Christ" another is that Erdem was saved in the basement of "their home" and that "the following year" Ergun invited Emir to a revival service at which Emir was saved. Another account is that "a year later" than his own conversion, his brothers came to Christ. (link to documentation of these) In another account, his brothers get saved when Caner preaches his first sermon (see documentation here) How are these honest mistakes or somehow all reconcilable truths?
III. Claims About His Family
8. "Many Wives" of his father vs. Two Wives of his father
As documented here (link to documentation) Dr. Caner has claimed that his father had "many wives" when the evidence suggests that his father had two wives, one at a time.
9. "Half-brothers" that can't be found
As documented here (link to documentation - second source) Dr. Caner has claimed that he has half-brothers, sons presumably of those "many wives" that his father had. We can find record of two half-sisters by the the one second wife we can locate, but no half-brothers.
Conclusion
These are just a few of the issues that Dr. Geisler did not address, at least I couldn't find them addressed, in his recent "defense" of Dr. Caner. May I respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler is simply not familiar with the troubling evidence. In view of this apparently new evidence that has come to light, is Dr. Geisler willing to say, "Upon further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Ergun Caner did indeed embellish his autobiography," or will Dr. Geisler come up with some new justification for these documented states made either by Caner himself or by seemingly official websites?
Finally, as a tenth troubling issue, let me highlight the issue of Ramadan being "forty days" long according to Dr. Caner on multiple occasions (link to documentation). Dr. Geisler has tried to say that Dr. Caner has some justification of this. I suspect that what Dr. Geisler has read is similar to the material that the "Fake Ex-Muslims" site attributes to Dr. Caner here (link to site). That documentation alleges that there are some tiny groups of Islam that do fast for 40 days. Let's take that explanation as completely 100% true without actually investigating it. Does that being true justify this comment:
"We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions." (link to documentation)
Does that claim about a couple tiny sects of Islam fasting for 40 days justify the claim that the "lunar month" of Ramadan is forty days as documented in this video clip?
Or is the attempt to find a few tiny branches of Islam an attempt to cover up the glaring error of saying that Ramadan is 40 days long, when it is actually a lunar month of 29 or 30 days long?
I'm asking the questions, because I would like to believe that the issue is simply that Dr. Geisler is only familiar with the charges and Dr. Caner's private responses to the charges, and that Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence itself or with a variety of the charges for which it would appear that Dr. Caner and his supporters have no good answer. Will Dr. Geisler respond? Who knows! I would encourage my friends to give Dr. Geisler some time to consider the evidence and respond before assuming that he will simply do what other of Dr. Caner's supporters have done and attack the messenger.
-TurretinFan
Caner Petition?
An alert reader drew my attention to an on-line petition that has apparently been created to protest, as inadequate, the investigation that Liberty University undertook (link to petition). I'm not a big fan of petitions - I'm not sure what they accomplish - but I think it is interesting that someone has started one. I'm not sure if it will get many signatures, as of my posting of this, it had only one signature. (UPDATE: It's up to about 10 signatures now, many obviously joke signatures.)
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Sungenis: Defending Purgatory By Attacking Limited Atonement
In my previous post (link to post) I highlighted Sungenis' admission that Roman Catholicism cannot answer with any certainty even such a basic question about Purgatory as whether it is a place or state. In the same oddly titled article (link to article), Sungenis purports to respond to Dr. White's criticism of the Roman view of Purgatory with respect to the Atonement.
The bulk of the discussion, however, is simply an attack on Limited Atonement. It includes one of the typical misrepresentations of the Reformed position (the allegation that we or Calvin held that "Christ went to hell for [the elect]." In his Institutes, Calvin explicitly ties the credal expression "descended into hell" to Christ's suffering on the cross, rejecting the idea that it refers to somewhere he went after his death and even responding to the objection that it would lead to the creed expressing the phrase out of order:
The Continental Reformed likewise teach:
While the Scottish Reformed teach:
(see also Pastor Danny Hyde's historical discussion)
Thus, it is misrepresentation of the Reformed position (either in General or as "Calvinistic" in particular) to say that we teach that Jesus "went to hell" for our sins. As to his humanity, he suffered on the cross and he remained under the power of death for three days. That's our view, not the typical misrepresentation.
After all the criticism of the Reformed view of the atonement is complete, Sungenis remarkably offers only general characterizations of what his own view of the atonement is and no link at all between that view of the atonement and Purgatory:
While I understand that he is referring to the reader to his book (where one would hope to find a more detailed explanation), it's worth noting that he simply offers a series of assertions, none of which really address the issues that Dr. White (and other Reformed critics) raise against Purgatory.
Also note the claim: "we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches." This is a comment that is obviously tailored toward a "Protestant" audience. But is it true? Does Sungenis arrive at his view of the atonement by combining all of what Scripture teaches? It seems unlikely that this is really how Sungenis arrives at his view - though it may be how the more "Arminian" listeners in the audience may have arrived at their view of the atonement.
It's easy to look at the explanation that Sungenis has provided and think that his goal is to trick Arminian hearers into thinking that the Roman Catholic view of the Atonement is essentially the same as their view of the Atonement by emphasizing certain differences between Roman theology and Reformed theology (as lampooned). I hope that's not his intention, but it is certainly a danger in his approach.
Because he has not actually presented a full and relevant discussion of the Roman Catholic view of Christ's work and its relation to the forgiveness and remission of the guilt and punishment of sins, Sungenis has not begun to answer the criticisms to which he purports to be responding in the article. In short, the article falls short of a rebuttal. Instead, some stones are thrown at a misrepresentation of the Reformed position.
-TurretinFan
The bulk of the discussion, however, is simply an attack on Limited Atonement. It includes one of the typical misrepresentations of the Reformed position (the allegation that we or Calvin held that "Christ went to hell for [the elect]." In his Institutes, Calvin explicitly ties the credal expression "descended into hell" to Christ's suffering on the cross, rejecting the idea that it refers to somewhere he went after his death and even responding to the objection that it would lead to the creed expressing the phrase out of order:
Those who — on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it — say that the order is reversed in this way are making a very trifling and ridiculous objection. f441 The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.16.10
The Continental Reformed likewise teach:
Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?- Heidelberg Catechism, Question/Answer 44
Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, (a) but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell. (b)
(a) Ps.18:5 The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. Ps.18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. Ps.116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Matt.26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. Heb.5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Matt.27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (b) Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
While the Scottish Reformed teach:
Question 50: Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?- Westminster Larger Catechism, Question/Answer 50
Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell.
(see also Pastor Danny Hyde's historical discussion)
Thus, it is misrepresentation of the Reformed position (either in General or as "Calvinistic" in particular) to say that we teach that Jesus "went to hell" for our sins. As to his humanity, he suffered on the cross and he remained under the power of death for three days. That's our view, not the typical misrepresentation.
After all the criticism of the Reformed view of the atonement is complete, Sungenis remarkably offers only general characterizations of what his own view of the atonement is and no link at all between that view of the atonement and Purgatory:
The Catholic doctrine of the Atonement is the only one that answers ALL of the relevant Scripture passages. I go through them all in my book Not By Bread Alone. God predestinated, but not without man’s free will. God desires all men to be saved even though not all men will be saved. Christ’s atonement was given to the whole world, and from it all men have the potential to be saved. Christ did not go to hell to pay for man’s or the elect’s sins; rather, Christ propitiated the Father and made salvation possible for all men. All of these are taught in Scripture, and we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches.Notice how, even in this brief paragraph, Sungenis again manages to insert his misrepresentation of the Reformed position on the atonement as a contrast to what he calls the "Catholic doctrine of the Atonement."
While I understand that he is referring to the reader to his book (where one would hope to find a more detailed explanation), it's worth noting that he simply offers a series of assertions, none of which really address the issues that Dr. White (and other Reformed critics) raise against Purgatory.
Also note the claim: "we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches." This is a comment that is obviously tailored toward a "Protestant" audience. But is it true? Does Sungenis arrive at his view of the atonement by combining all of what Scripture teaches? It seems unlikely that this is really how Sungenis arrives at his view - though it may be how the more "Arminian" listeners in the audience may have arrived at their view of the atonement.
It's easy to look at the explanation that Sungenis has provided and think that his goal is to trick Arminian hearers into thinking that the Roman Catholic view of the Atonement is essentially the same as their view of the Atonement by emphasizing certain differences between Roman theology and Reformed theology (as lampooned). I hope that's not his intention, but it is certainly a danger in his approach.
Because he has not actually presented a full and relevant discussion of the Roman Catholic view of Christ's work and its relation to the forgiveness and remission of the guilt and punishment of sins, Sungenis has not begun to answer the criticisms to which he purports to be responding in the article. In short, the article falls short of a rebuttal. Instead, some stones are thrown at a misrepresentation of the Reformed position.
-TurretinFan
Dr. White's Responses to Dr. Geisler
Unbeknown to me, Dr. White was similarly providing a detailed response to Dr. Geisler's comments. They may found in three parts here: (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4). It looks like we said fairly similar things at a number of points, and highlighted different issues at other points. I would normally say, "Enjoy," but there's nothing particularly enjoyable about watching this saga unfold.
- TurretinFan
- TurretinFan
Wrapping Up Geisler's Defense of Caner
In a first post, I introduced Dr. Geisler's latest error of judgment with respect to the Caner scandal (link to post). In a second post, I addressed the first group of "misspeaks" that Geisler identified (link to post). In a third post, I addressed the list of various charges and responses that Geisler aimed to address (link to post). In this post, I'll respond to Dr. Norman Geisler's "Concluding Thoughts" on the subject.
Dr. Geisler begins:
Geisler continues:
Geisler continues:
As far as "No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion" goes, I'm not sure we will actually ever know. Do we know who the investigative committee at Liberty was? Was their report, which was given to the committee of Liberty trustees, ever released to the public? Will it be released to the public? Does Dr. Geisler have access to it? Have any other groups except that one been authorized to investigate his statements? Did Dr. Geisler's school authorize an investigation in parallel to Liberty's investigation?
Or does Dr. Geisler think this was just a coincidence? It's a little hard to buy that.
But if it was fair decision, doesn't it suggest some form of moral culpability was the perception of the trustees? Or was the reason a question of competence? Or something else?
The trustees certainly did not say that they found no evidence of wrong-doing on Dr. Caner's part, something we would hope to see in any announcement that also announced that Dr. Caner was not continuing as Dean, if that's what the trustees wanted to convey.
Perhaps we will never know - and we can speculate all day about what motivated the Liberty trustees. To all appearances, the Liberty trustees are not talking about this any more than they already have. All we can see is that they found that statements were made that were not true (self-contradictory), and they took negative action with respect to Dr. Caner. They confirmed what we already knew: that Dr. Caner was a Muslim who converted as a teenager.
If only Geisler were as cautious as the Liberty trustees, he would not be faced with putting himself in the position he now finds himself, as he digs himself deeper and deeper in his attempt to defend Dr. Caner. While I can certainly appreciate his obvious loyalty, I think he's making a mistake here.
Then again, perhaps there are appropriate answers to the responses I have provided above. I would like nothing better than to be shown that Dr. Ergun Caner is completely innocent of all the charges that have been placed against him. If Dr. Geisler or anyone else can do that, may God give them speed to do it quickly!
-TurretinFan
Dr. Geisler begins:
Reviewing these allegations reminds me of the numerous similar statements I have made in the past. I could easily be proven a liar on similar ground. For example, when ask where I was born, I have given at least three different answers over the years: In Detroit, in Warren, and in Van Dyke, Michigan. All are true. It was metropolitan Detroit (literally a half mile into the northeastern suburb). It was in a place once called Van Dyke and now called Warren.The comparison to Dr. Caner is almost comical. While those three answers are all different, there is a real sense in which they are the same. There's no way that the answer "Stockholm, Sweden" is the same as the answer "Istanbul, Turkey" (see the documentation here). That's not similar to saying Detroit, or Warren, or Van Dyke. It's not like Stockholm is a suburb of Istanbul. Now, if the two answers were Istanbul and Constantinople, ok (see discussion here). But Stockholm vs. Istanbul is not comparable.
Geisler continues:
When asked what my father’s name was, I have said Fonse (which is what most people called him, or Alphonse, or more formally Alphonso). If one’s motives are to discredit, it would not be hard to discredit me or almost anyone with the kinds of arguments used by Caner’s critics.I doubt Dr. Geisler has gone around claiming that he watched a show years before it came out in a country in which he never lived. (compare the discussion documented here) It's not hard to see how someone could view him negatively for making that kind of claim - it does not take "motives ... to discredit" in order to get to a negative result. I myself entered the discussion trying to discredit the Muslim critic's claims, but there are simply so many (as they have been called) self-contradictory statements of a factual nature.
Geisler continues:
If, on the other hand, one wants to be fair, then there are no real grounds to support the allegations of Caner’s critics that he is a liar and a fraud who repeatedly embellished things to support his own claims. No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion. Nor did the Board committee at Liberty University that examined him. Rather, they said, “After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has some factual statements that are self-contradictory [as we have discussed above]. However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager…. [as his critics had charged]. Hence, The university has offered and Dr. Caner has accepted an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a Professor.”No grounds? Seriously? What level of a pattern of wrong claims about his past would be necessary to be "some grounds" if the current evidence is "no grounds"? More likely, however, Dr. Geisler is simply unfamiliar with all of the evidence. He hasn't had to sit down and listen to Caner speaking for hour on end, hearing the different stories in their relevant context. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but if I am - I have to wonder how Dr. Geisler could say what he says in good conscience.
As far as "No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion" goes, I'm not sure we will actually ever know. Do we know who the investigative committee at Liberty was? Was their report, which was given to the committee of Liberty trustees, ever released to the public? Will it be released to the public? Does Dr. Geisler have access to it? Have any other groups except that one been authorized to investigate his statements? Did Dr. Geisler's school authorize an investigation in parallel to Liberty's investigation?
Clearly, Liberty found no moral culpability or doctrinal deviation or else they would not have kept him on the faculty. One can only speculate as to why his contract as Dean was not renewed. Certainly, it could not have been because Liberty is an institution that has eschews controversy. For it could be said that the founder Jerry Falwell, whom I have greatly admired and praised, had “controversy” as his middle name! My own guess, having taught at Liberty University and knowing many of its leaders and workings quite well, is that the decision was more institutional in nature.What does "institutional" mean? Was Dr. Caner unfairly relieved of his position at Liberty? If he was, and if someone can show that to me, I will be his most vocal advocate to get that position back.
Or does Dr. Geisler think this was just a coincidence? It's a little hard to buy that.
But if it was fair decision, doesn't it suggest some form of moral culpability was the perception of the trustees? Or was the reason a question of competence? Or something else?
The trustees certainly did not say that they found no evidence of wrong-doing on Dr. Caner's part, something we would hope to see in any announcement that also announced that Dr. Caner was not continuing as Dean, if that's what the trustees wanted to convey.
Perhaps we will never know - and we can speculate all day about what motivated the Liberty trustees. To all appearances, the Liberty trustees are not talking about this any more than they already have. All we can see is that they found that statements were made that were not true (self-contradictory), and they took negative action with respect to Dr. Caner. They confirmed what we already knew: that Dr. Caner was a Muslim who converted as a teenager.
If only Geisler were as cautious as the Liberty trustees, he would not be faced with putting himself in the position he now finds himself, as he digs himself deeper and deeper in his attempt to defend Dr. Caner. While I can certainly appreciate his obvious loyalty, I think he's making a mistake here.
Then again, perhaps there are appropriate answers to the responses I have provided above. I would like nothing better than to be shown that Dr. Ergun Caner is completely innocent of all the charges that have been placed against him. If Dr. Geisler or anyone else can do that, may God give them speed to do it quickly!
-TurretinFan
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Responding to Norman Geisler's Defense of Ergun Caner - Part 2
In the previous post, we addressed a first group of "misspeaks" identified by Dr. Geisler (link to post). In this post, we'll look at some of the charges that Dr. Geisler identifies, as well as the responses he provides. I'll try to address each in turn.
I don't see how Dr. Geisler could possibly think that Dr. Caner was just saying he could sound out the Arabic words the way that many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims can. He claims to speak it alongside Turkish and that he understands it, with it being a language of his before English! I suspect this is simply another example of Dr. Geisler not being familiar with the evidence.
However, Dr. Caner's claim was not simply to being a Turkish citizen. He claimed to be "100% Turkish." (see here, for example) I've never heard someone express citizenship that way. Have you? Has Dr. Geisler? I think, again, Dr. Geisler is just unfamiliar with the evidence.
That said, what is a "masallah"? The word "maşallah" is a Turkish word that literally means something like "God willed it" but which is an idiom for something good or wonderful (a little like the way we in English use "hallelujah" sometimes, though perhaps even a bit more secular). Perhaps Dr. Caner has an old photo with the word "masallah" on it, and he doesn't know what the word means? I'm just speculating on that here. I'd be happy to have Dr. Geisler explain what a "masallah" is, and why Dr. Caner's circumcision ritual was deferred from infancy to age 12 (see discussion here)(additional discussion here).
As for the other pictures, I haven't seen them, and Dr. Geisler doesn't provide them or provide access to them. What was the certificate for? for the circumcision? We have no idea. In any event, the few photos that theoretically exist don't seem to show much more than what one might see of a "Christian" child whose family had them go to Vacation Bible School one summer. It proves participation, not devotion, does it not?
The issue of devotion, however, is something that seems to me to be fairly subjective. It's easy to say "I was devout," and it is hard for anyone to disprove that.
I can't seem to find any record of the "old Jefferson Hotel" in Brooklyn, NY. There is a famous "old Jefferson Hotel" in Richmond, VA, which is not all that far from where Dr. Caner presently resides. Perhaps he is confusing that one with something else? It would be pretty hard for a child of such tender years as Dr. Caner was to remember the name of a hotel that his family stayed at, even if they stayed there an extended period of time. Or perhaps the "old Jefferson Hotel" was simply too small to have left a trace 40 some odd years later.
In any event, a boy of two or three would be quite precocious to learn any large amount of the language. In any event, the claim that I documented (I believe there may be another claim that mentions a street name) is this: "I am an immigrant, I'm Turkish, 100% Turkish, for which I usually have to apologize, because we have horrible atrocities that Turks do, all the time, but I came to America through Brooklyn, NY and learned English at Aquinas (some Brooklyn folk? yeah!) and then moved to Ohio (I'll tell you a little bit about that later) but moved to Ohio and then became a Christian. I was a Sunni Muslim and a jahideen not a mujahideen, not a holy warrior, but I had not made it that high, but I was a jahideen when I got saved." (documentation here) And this less specific one: "Until I was 15 years old, I thought every single one of you hated me. See, I'd been taught my entire life that Christians were hateful, vengeful - that you'd have nothing from me but death - and that we were at war. We came to America through Brooklyn, NY, that's where I learned English. (laughter from crowd) Yup yup. Settled in Columbus, OH. Do you know how I found Jesus? I found Jesus while I was still a devout Muslim - devout Muslim - I was a PK [preacher's kid] for lack of a better term. I had a 'drug' problem: my father drug me to the mosque every time the doors were open." (documentation here)
It is certainly not normal for Muslims to perform their prayers in the bathroom. There are basically two places where Muslims normally do not feel permitted to perform their prayers: bathrooms and graveyards.
Is it possible that Dr. Caner performed his prayers in the bathroom at high school? Of course it is possible. Anything is possible. But we have no good reason to believe that he did that, or that such an action would be consistent with him being a devout Muslim.
Caner may cite to Muslim authorities to the contrary, but that's really beside the point. He doesn't just claim that Ramadan is 40 days, he claims he personally fasted 40 days during Ramadan: "we fasted 40 days during Ramadan" (documented here) See also these clips:
So, while there may be some argument to be made that some tiny group of Muslims somewhere fast for forty days, that argument doesn't seem to be applicable to Caner.
As for the reference to Surah 2:51, read what it says - here are three translations:
YUSUFALI: And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.
PICKTHAL: And when We did appoint for Moses forty nights (of solitude), and then ye chose the calf, when he had gone from you, and were wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And when We appointed a time of forty nights with Musa, then you took the calf (for a god) after him and you were unjust.
And here is the Arabic:
Yes, I'm sure it was painful - and there is no need to minimize or trivialize that. On the other hand, saying things like "completely disowned" or otherwise suggesting that, when his mother and grandmother with whom he lived did not disown him does sound like an embellishment, does it not? Again, I'm not sure if Dr. Geisler is really familiar with the facts.
Second, who is the mystery Muslim that Ergun Caner debated in Lincoln, NE? Is his name something like Shabir Ally? Does he look anything like him? How did the two get confused if (as Geisler seems to think) this was just an honest mistake. Dr. Caner himself gave the following "apology" apparently regarding the Shabir Ally situation (the apology discussed here - alternative link for apology here):
So what is his real name? He has claimed his real name is something that sounds like "Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovanni Caner" (example)(see longer discussion of name issues here). Is that the truth? Or is Michael the truth? Or is Mehmet the truth? Does Dr. Geisler even know?
Perhaps in a final segment we can discuss Dr. Geisler's concluding thoughts.
- TurretinFan
The Charge that He Could Speak Arabic when He Can't. - He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur'an and speak it in prayer.He may only claim that now. However, as documented here (link to documentation) he stated: "We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions." Similarly, as documented here (link to documentation) he stated: "Every debate I've ever had, the Muslim, 'Ah you do not understand Islam, you need to understand the Arabic,' What's next? That was my language before English."
I don't see how Dr. Geisler could possibly think that Dr. Caner was just saying he could sound out the Arabic words the way that many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims can. He claims to speak it alongside Turkish and that he understands it, with it being a language of his before English! I suspect this is simply another example of Dr. Geisler not being familiar with the evidence.
The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed. --This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun's father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.First, let me note that I don't know whether Geisler's claim regarding Swedish law is even true. Likewise, I have no way of verifying that Caner traveled with his father at some point (who knows when) to establish Turkish citizenship.
However, Dr. Caner's claim was not simply to being a Turkish citizen. He claimed to be "100% Turkish." (see here, for example) I've never heard someone express citizenship that way. Have you? Has Dr. Geisler? I think, again, Dr. Geisler is just unfamiliar with the evidence.
The Charge that He was never trained in Jihad at a Muslim School. - The charges that he trained in a Sudanese or Lebanese School (Madrassa) are false and are based on wrongly assuming his statement of “Islamic youth jihad” was in reference to a specific terrorist organization. He trained in the one attached to his Mosque as all Muslim children do. And he was trained there in Jihad, as all the other children are-even those who never take up a gun.What Caner claimed, as documented here (link to documentation) was this: "Until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. So, until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September, as were thousands and as are to this day, thousands." If that is a claim that all Muslim schools (madrassa can be a generic term for school) teach people to do what was done on September 11, that seems unlikely, and I'll leave it to the Muslims to specifically testify as to whether Geisler's claim in that regard is true. But otherwise, again, it seems like Geisler is probably just unfamiliar with what the evidence actually is.
The Charge that Ergun claimed he “Always Lived” in a Muslim Country before Coming to the US. - Although, the phrase “always lived” is not precise. There is no evidence of an evil intent to embellish here, as his critics say. True, Sweden was not a Muslim country, but he did live as a Muslim with a Muslim father while in Sweden. After all, Ergun's father was from a Muslim country, Ergun was a citizen of a Muslim country, and he lived as a Muslim in Sweden. It would be an embellishment saying that if he was not a Muslim and not a citizen of a Muslim country.It looks like an embellishment saying that you lived in majority Muslim countries (plural) (see documentation), when you haven't lived in even one majority Muslim country, even if you lived with a Muslim father for many years. For example, he states: "And in every country where I had lived, we had always been in the majority. I am Sunni. About 90% of the Muslims in the world are Sunni. That includes the Wahabi, which is a subset, which is what Bin Ladin is. But I had never been around Christians." (documentation) Does Geisler really think that it is not an embellishment to say "in every country where I had lived, we had always been in majority ... I had never been around Christians" when he only apparently ever lived in Sweden (for his infancy) and Ohio for apparently, essentially his entire childhood? Once again, it looks like Dr. Geisler is not familiar with the evidence.
The Charge that He false Claims that “I Came as a Jihadist from Turkey”. - Ergun denies making this statement, and I have not seen any document refuting his claim. He does claim to have been trained in Jihad, as all Muslim children are. And he is of Turkish ancestry. The rest is apparently extrapolated by his detractorsI don't recall Dr. Caner using those exact words. Hpwever, as documented here (link to documentation) his words were this: "Until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. So, until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September, as were thousands and as are to this day, thousands." The original context of these words appear to be Dr. White's following comment:
8) How does he explain his often published claim to have come to the United States in 1978 or 1979? How can this be seen as anything other than a purposeful distortion necessary for his “I came as a jihadist from Turkey” rather than “I came as a son of a Muslim father and a Swedish mother to Ohio as a small child” persona?(source) Whether or not that is an accurate characterization of the persona, I trust Dr. White is willing to let those who hear Dr. Caner's speeches decide.
The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims to have been a Devout Muslim. - Caner photos prove of his activity in the Islamic religion. He has a picture of his masallah (when circumcised at age 12); a photo of him praying in the mosque; a picture of his reading the Qur'in recitation. He also has a photo of his receiving a certificate from an Imam. His bother Emir, also a former Muslim, has vouched for the veracity of his claims.If there are pictures of Dr. Caner's circumcision, I guess I'm glad that Dr. Geisler didn't share them.
That said, what is a "masallah"? The word "maşallah" is a Turkish word that literally means something like "God willed it" but which is an idiom for something good or wonderful (a little like the way we in English use "hallelujah" sometimes, though perhaps even a bit more secular). Perhaps Dr. Caner has an old photo with the word "masallah" on it, and he doesn't know what the word means? I'm just speculating on that here. I'd be happy to have Dr. Geisler explain what a "masallah" is, and why Dr. Caner's circumcision ritual was deferred from infancy to age 12 (see discussion here)(additional discussion here).
As for the other pictures, I haven't seen them, and Dr. Geisler doesn't provide them or provide access to them. What was the certificate for? for the circumcision? We have no idea. In any event, the few photos that theoretically exist don't seem to show much more than what one might see of a "Christian" child whose family had them go to Vacation Bible School one summer. It proves participation, not devotion, does it not?
The issue of devotion, however, is something that seems to me to be fairly subjective. It's easy to say "I was devout," and it is hard for anyone to disprove that.
The Charge that Caner Claims to have Learned “Perfect” English in Brooklyn. - Caner denies that he said his English was “perfect.” But he did learn some English while living in the old Jefferson Hotel while the family first migrated to the United States. They moved to Ohio where his English improved.I don't know who claims that Caner claimed to have learned "perfect" English in Brooklyn. Caner does claim to have learned English there. It's interesting that Geisler claims "he did learn some English while living in the old Jefferson Hotel while the family first migrated to the United States." How long were they in the hotel? His brother Erdem was born in Sweden in 1968, and his brother Emir was born in 1970, with the family's migration to the U.S. apparently occurring in 1969. But his brother Emir was born in Ohio, apparently in a little town north of Columbus.
I can't seem to find any record of the "old Jefferson Hotel" in Brooklyn, NY. There is a famous "old Jefferson Hotel" in Richmond, VA, which is not all that far from where Dr. Caner presently resides. Perhaps he is confusing that one with something else? It would be pretty hard for a child of such tender years as Dr. Caner was to remember the name of a hotel that his family stayed at, even if they stayed there an extended period of time. Or perhaps the "old Jefferson Hotel" was simply too small to have left a trace 40 some odd years later.
In any event, a boy of two or three would be quite precocious to learn any large amount of the language. In any event, the claim that I documented (I believe there may be another claim that mentions a street name) is this: "I am an immigrant, I'm Turkish, 100% Turkish, for which I usually have to apologize, because we have horrible atrocities that Turks do, all the time, but I came to America through Brooklyn, NY and learned English at Aquinas (some Brooklyn folk? yeah!) and then moved to Ohio (I'll tell you a little bit about that later) but moved to Ohio and then became a Christian. I was a Sunni Muslim and a jahideen not a mujahideen, not a holy warrior, but I had not made it that high, but I was a jahideen when I got saved." (documentation here) And this less specific one: "Until I was 15 years old, I thought every single one of you hated me. See, I'd been taught my entire life that Christians were hateful, vengeful - that you'd have nothing from me but death - and that we were at war. We came to America through Brooklyn, NY, that's where I learned English. (laughter from crowd) Yup yup. Settled in Columbus, OH. Do you know how I found Jesus? I found Jesus while I was still a devout Muslim - devout Muslim - I was a PK [preacher's kid] for lack of a better term. I had a 'drug' problem: my father drug me to the mosque every time the doors were open." (documentation here)
The Charge that Caner could not have Offered his Muslim Prays in the School Bathroom as he said that he did. - This was neither a shameful or unacceptable practice for Muslims, as some critics claim. The Islamic Hadith allows it, and it is done by devout Muslims to this day as has been pointed out by former Muslim Hussein Wario (www.husseinwario.com).Mr. Wario is another Muslim who, like Dr. Caner, converted at a young age. It might be advisable for Dr. Geisler not to assume that Mr. Wario is some sort of expert in Islam.
It is certainly not normal for Muslims to perform their prayers in the bathroom. There are basically two places where Muslims normally do not feel permitted to perform their prayers: bathrooms and graveyards.
Is it possible that Dr. Caner performed his prayers in the bathroom at high school? Of course it is possible. Anything is possible. But we have no good reason to believe that he did that, or that such an action would be consistent with him being a devout Muslim.
The Charge that Caner Claimed Ramadan was Forty Days Long. - Muslims claim this feast is only 30 days long, and Caner said it was forty days. Caner cites Muslim authorities to the contrary, showing it can last up to forty days. Even the Qur'an (Sura 2:51) speaks forty days of fasting.Ramadan is the name of a month (see discussion here). Islam uses lunar months, so they are always one lunar cycle long, and the moon has never taken 40 days to cycle (normally it is 29-30 days). Ramadan is also the name of the fast during the month of Ramadan (see discussion here).
Caner may cite to Muslim authorities to the contrary, but that's really beside the point. He doesn't just claim that Ramadan is 40 days, he claims he personally fasted 40 days during Ramadan: "we fasted 40 days during Ramadan" (documented here) See also these clips:
So, while there may be some argument to be made that some tiny group of Muslims somewhere fast for forty days, that argument doesn't seem to be applicable to Caner.
As for the reference to Surah 2:51, read what it says - here are three translations:
YUSUFALI: And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.
PICKTHAL: And when We did appoint for Moses forty nights (of solitude), and then ye chose the calf, when he had gone from you, and were wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And when We appointed a time of forty nights with Musa, then you took the calf (for a god) after him and you were unjust.
And here is the Arabic:
وَإِذْ وَعَدْنَا مُوسَىٰٓ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةًۭ ثُمَّ ٱتَّخَذْتُمُ ٱلْعِجْلَ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦ وَأَنتُمْ ظَلِمُونَSo, yes, that verse of the Koran mentions "forty days" but it does not say that Ramadan is supposed to be forty days. This prooftexting reminds one of the prooftexting that Dr. Geisler's book, Chosen But Free was criticized for using, as Dr. White explained in The Potter's Freedom.
The Charge that Caner Confuses the Shahada with the Beginning Words in the Surat at-Fatiha. - It is alleged that no knowledgeable devout Muslim would confuse these two. But both are part of Islamic prayers that are recited many times every day. The first is the confession and the second is a recitation.This response does not seem to make much sense. The entire point is that a devout Muslim would be familiar with both prayers. Such a person confusing the two prayers for one another does not seem to make much sense. Can you imagine a devout Roman Catholic confusing the Lord's Prayer with the Hail Mary, even in Latin in the old days? It's almost unimaginable. Both are very familiar prayers.
The Charge that His Family Did Not Disown Him When He Converted to Christianity as Caner Claimed that they Did. - It is true that after the divorce he was raised by his mother who obviously had not disowned him since she was no longer a Muslim. But his Muslim father who had remarried did disown him. This is the Muslim “family” to which he referred. This was very painful to him since he lived only a half hour away but could not even speak to him.It may be obvious to Dr. Geisler that Caner's custodial family didn't actually disown him, but I question whether it was obvious to any of the groups to whom Caner spoke. For example, when Caner said “I had no family,” after his conversion (documentation) was the audience supposed to somehow know that Caner just meant that he didn't have the second family that lived half an hour away? Or what about when he said on the Zola Levitt show: "They won't dilute. Islam is Islam - and that was me coming to America: a fiery young man - all three of us, the three sons from our mother - all three of us devout Muslims - our father just this hero to us and when I converted - disowned by my family - completely disowned - father cut me out of the pictures - a year later both of my brothers became believers." (documentation) How does one go from "completely disowned" to simply being disowned by a non-custodial parent?
Yes, I'm sure it was painful - and there is no need to minimize or trivialize that. On the other hand, saying things like "completely disowned" or otherwise suggesting that, when his mother and grandmother with whom he lived did not disown him does sound like an embellishment, does it not? Again, I'm not sure if Dr. Geisler is really familiar with the facts.
The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed to be. --This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun's father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.This is a duplicate of one that is already addressed above.
The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims that he has had more than Sixty Debates with Muslims. - Critics challenge this statement and claim it is an intentional embellishment. But they mistakenly assume that all debates are formal. Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so. But he has also engaged in multiple informal debates as well. There is no evidence to deny his claim. Indeed, given his numerous encounters with Muslims, it is reasonable to assume there were at least sixty.Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so? Where? We've reviewed Dr. Caner's debating claims before (see the discussion here - we cannot seem to find these formal debates, or even any informal debates).
The Charge that no Knowledgeable Muslim Would Mis-cite the Hadith as Caner Did. - It is charged that Caner often cites the Hadith without mentioning the actual name of the collection. But, as even Muslim scholars admit, there is no “official” way to cite the Hadith. It is often cited without reference to the collection.What Muslim scholars does Dr. Geisler have in mind? Citing a specific Hadith saying by simply saying "Hadith 3:16" is the same as saying "Bible 3:16." Maybe a person will correctly guess the book (in the case of the Bible) or the collection (in the case of the Hadith), but a citation to "Hadith 3:16" would be an incomplete citation. The wording of this answer appears to strikingly similar to Hussein Wario's claim:
I said “there is no “official” way to cite Hadith. The most authentic Hadith collection is Sahih Bukhari. Many times when it is quoted, it comes without the name because it is the most authentic and widely referenced.(source) Is Hussein Wario supposed to be Geisler's "Muslim scholars" admitting things? I hope not! As noted above, he's a Christian who converted as a teen, like Ergun Caner (or younger, like Emir Caner). There may be Muslim scholars who would cite Sahih al-Bukhari without specifically saying so, because in their context a person would know that this is the one collection they are using. However, the Caners, in their books, do not rely only on that one collection. (more discussion of the Hadith citation issue here)
The Charge that Caner did not Debate Shabir Ally in Nebraska. - Dr. Caner has admitted that this was a mistake and has publically apologized for it. He did, however, engage another Muslim while in Lincoln, NB. No one has proven this was an intentional deception, as some critics claim.First of all, the appropriate abbreviation for Nebraska is NE. The fact that Dr. Geisler got this wrong doesn't mean he's not a real American. Of course, it may not be that Dr. Geisler himself actually even wrote this section.
Second, who is the mystery Muslim that Ergun Caner debated in Lincoln, NE? Is his name something like Shabir Ally? Does he look anything like him? How did the two get confused if (as Geisler seems to think) this was just an honest mistake. Dr. Caner himself gave the following "apology" apparently regarding the Shabir Ally situation (the apology discussed here - alternative link for apology here):
Finally, there is a legitimate complaint which I must address, namely, referencing a Muslim scholar that I have never met. Listening to the audio, I honestly have no idea who I was referencing, but it certainly could not have been the man I referenced. For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again. This applies to any time when I wrongly used names. I shall be more careful.Perhaps in the interim between February and now, some new debate in Nebraska has come to Dr. Caner's mind and he has conveyed this to Dr. Geisler. If so, perhaps Dr. Geisler would be kind enough to share this information with us. It would be especially nice if it turned out that this was an actual debate and not simply that Dr. Caner happened to share the gospel with a Muslim barber while having his hair cut in Nebreska (an exceedingly unlikely scenario, I know - and let me point out that it would still be great if he shared the gospel with someone, even if it is not good that he turned that into a claim to have debated one of the leading Muslim apologists). The bottom line is that it sounds like Dr. Geisler is simply speculating that Dr. Caner may have mistakenly used the name "Shabir Ally" instead of the name of a different Muslim debater.
The Charge that Caner has Used various Names in Publications. Dr. Caner has used “E. Michael Caner” in one book while using “Ergun Mehmet Caner” in other books. Why? His mother desired that he use Michael, a name she always wished to give him, while Dr. Caner used “Mehmet” in honor of his father, especially after his father's passing in 1999. Some have even attacked his nickname, “Butch,” which he has used since moving to the South and was a name given to him by those who had difficulty pronouncing his first name.Those sound like great explanations that would seem to be a good explanation for why a person might use various pseudonyms. But Dr. Caner has made claims about what his name is - not just used various pen names.
So what is his real name? He has claimed his real name is something that sounds like "Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovanni Caner" (example)(see longer discussion of name issues here). Is that the truth? Or is Michael the truth? Or is Mehmet the truth? Does Dr. Geisler even know?
The Charge that Caner Claims to have a Ph.D when it is Only a Th.D. - Actually, his degree is a D. Theol. But these degrees are equivalent, as even accrediting agencies attest. Many seminaries have converted the Th.D into a Ph.D program.D. Theol. and Th.D. are the same thing. While a Ph.D. may be an equivalent to a Th.D. in terms of the work involved, the issue is not just that Dr. Caner seems to have sometimes claimed he had a Ph.D. when he did not, but that he (or others on his behalf) claimed to have it in addition to his Th.D. (discussion of the credential issue).
Perhaps in a final segment we can discuss Dr. Geisler's concluding thoughts.
- TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
