Granville Sharp Rule

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white First of all, let me thank you all for being here this afternoon

I Wish there were more people here. I think these are important things and You know what for the peace of the world?

I think more people should see Christians and Muslims honestly airing their differences but doing so with respect for one another

I can honestly say to you that I am going to be praying for Farhan Qureshi I have very much enjoyed our encounter and I hope you have learned a lot by being here today.

I Would like to address just a couple of things Farhan opened the door for a future debate,

I think Because he said we cannot prove we cannot know what the canon of the scripture in the text of scripture was in the days of Muhammad Oh Would I like to have a debate with you on that one?

Because I believe that we can document that one to the hilt I believe that that is completely an error and I would like to be able to demonstrate that we have entire

Manuscripts of the Bible that exists by that period of time The issue of the can was long in the past that particular period of time and I would love to be able to address that He also addressed the issue of the language of the

Son of God And that by default the definition is my friends anytime we use human language of God You better be careful that phrase by default, especially when you're using the human definition

Even when describing Allah we have to be very careful in the language that we use in Islamic theology. Do we not?

Do we not have to avoid reading into those words human definitions when you're applying them to God that is the same case here

The biblical use of Son of God is not By default some biological or Derivative expression he says are you worshiping the physical nature of Jesus or the spirit within him?

Jesus is one man. He's the God man When I walk up to someone and greet them people don't go if I greet

Bo over here people don't go Why are you greeting both spirit or both body? No, I'm greeting Bo and when we worship the

God man, he has become incarnate As entered into human flesh we don't distinguish and divide between them in that kind of a fashion

And so what have we seen today? I Appreciate the fact that Farhan was very straightforward and saying look

I'm not going to deal with all the other New Testament texts because I'm coming from a particular perspective And I'm going to deal just with what

Jesus claims for himself. Now, of course, I believe that's a little bit of a Unfair limitation of the data, but I've gone with it

I'm willing to go with that and say, all right, let's look at what Jesus says about himself

Does Jesus use Lord of himself? Yes, do his disciples use God of him? Yes Does Jesus accept worship?

Yes, does he Jesus identify as? faithful actions not Idolatry, but as an act of faith the ascription to him of the phrase my

Lord and my God Does he identify himself as the son of man when the book of Daniel is a divine being with a kingdom and his servants?

Give him luck true. Oh, the true is the highest form of worship found in the temple itself in the temple worship in Jerusalem the

Jews understood Jesus claims we have not had an Explanation that far on it said well, but it was a great thing to claim to be a prophet or Messiah there are all sorts of people claiming prophets and messiahs in those days and Jesus himself kept his

Messiah hood a Secret in the public context. He only revealed that to private individuals

Look at the Gospels when people that if I'm inside don't tell anybody that that's not what offended the

Jews in John 10 That's not what offended the Jews in John 8 That's not what offended

Jews in Mark 2 when she has claims to forgive sins It wasn't a claim to prophethood

Messiah hood. It was Jesus's claim to deity because folks Jews don't stone People but for what blasphemy

Blasphemy and that's exactly what they say in John chapter 10 We are stoning you for blasphemy because you being a man make yourself out to be what

Messiah? No a God. Why didn't she is great?

Why didn't you say? Oh, you're wrong? You know, it's all metaphor. You just don't understand He never does that And so did

Jesus claim to be God? The answer is yes, and that becomes very clear when we do not adopt a

Presupposition that the New Testament as a whole has been corrupted and we look at the rest of the testimony of the New Testament That phrase ambiguity is completely lost

That's the evidence that we have before us this day to my Muslim friends It is my prayer that the

Spirit of God will open your eyes to see the glory of Jesus Christ Who loved you?

Loves you still and gave himself on Calvary's cross my closing statement from the debate

Sunday afternoon with Farhan Qureshi Did Jesus claim to be

God somewhere outside of Escondido? I honestly don't remember the exact name of the town but it was somewhere where I could quickly drive from there to the

San Diego Airport and fly home so Very enjoyable debate with Farhan Qureshi on that particular subject rather short but what

I really appreciate is it stayed on the topic stayed on the subject and as such

I think was very useful to the people who were there and of course obviously when the Videos are available.

We will be Letting you know that we'll be getting those from Arabic Christian perspective pastor

George Saig is there and I want to thank them for all the work. They did thank

David would David well back up just a second I Started off a little bit oddly

I I knew I was gonna be working hard this weekend I knew

I was gonna be working hard this weekend because I've never done two debates in in one one shot basically in one day and so That I knew

I knew Saturday was gonna be tough and then to do another debate the next day three debates in two days is a lot and So I was gonna be doing what?

Dave Hunt did but they'd all be on the subject of Islam and I'm Probably 35 years younger than Davis and haven't had my hips replaced yet So I'm working that direction, but you know who knows so I knew it's gonna be a real challenge and Then this thing started coming up I even had to change my travel plans or actually fly standby to get there early enough to do it

But the things are coming up on Friday night. There's gonna be like some presentations. We're just gonna record it Then some

Muslims are gonna be there. We're gonna ask some questions and okay But could you do a 20 -minute presentation on?

Original sin and the need for atonement Okay, so I'm you know,

I've got a fourth presentation to make but you know I really wasn't overly focused on that because it wasn't the debates

So we get there and now as I get to the building is the first time

I hear it called a debate And what it ends up being I'm sitting there next to brother

Scott From Australia. He was the one who got in all the trouble, you know He was brought up on charges under Australia's hate crimes law for doing a seminar on Islam and he's from Pakistan and then next to him is

David Wood and then we have Sammy's authority and This ends up being

I do the opening statement and Then Sammy gets to respond to me and then David does a statement and Sam responds to him and they do

Crossfire and then Daniel Scott speaks and Sammy responds and they do crossfire and I'm sitting there surfing the web

I mean, I'm sitting there in the chat channel. I can't even defend my opening statement. I got nothing man, and that is frustrating

It's like no no, no, I had no idea and now it's debate and it goes on forever and I'm like, oh man and so Finally in the audience questions,

I got to answer questions. I got two minutes and Then what the other guys decided to do was we were trying to shorten it up because it was going so long

All of us were supposed to get five minute closing statements they decided to give the Christian side to a 10 minute closing statement instead of 15 5 for each of the persons and David and Daniel decided

I should have all 10 minutes. So I got the 10 minute closing statement So I poured two and a half three hours worth of frustration into 10 minutes and the folks

The folks who listened did seem to very much appreciate the closing statement anyways, so We'll have to put that on YouTube sometime once once again, once we get the videotapes of it, which could be a number of Of months down the line lanes and channel and he says it was worth it for that closing statement though So he was there so everyone seemed to appreciate the the conclusion there

But so we sort of had I say I did three and a half debates this weekend because that wasn't really a full debate

Because I didn't even do crossfire. There's no cross -examination or rebuttal I I did an opening statement answered one question did a 10 -minute closing statement so that doesn't quite count as a full debate, but I Was there anyways, and then the two debates on on Saturday and the one debate on Sunday now

I I should make some comments. I think about about the debates Especially if you have seen the clips that I've already put on the

YouTube page and I think of our linked on the blog and They were very different the two debates

I did in one day were with a man by the name of Osama Abdullah and I Had seen of course

Osama's website and I knew that these debates were not exactly to be like the debates

I've had with Shabir Ali or something like that that they were going to be a little different because I had seen many very basic fundamental errors in argumentation factuality

From reading mr. Abdullah's website, I came to the conclusion that he really doesn't know almost anything about the

Bible at all. He does not seem to be able to read it in context and Is willing to accept any kind of argumentation against the the

Christian faith as long as it agrees with Islam no matter where it comes from It doesn't matter what its sources doesn't matter what worldview it comes from It doesn't matter if the same person would use the exact same arguments against Islam doesn't matter

He's he's gonna throw everything out there and in his we're debating two subjects was

Jesus crucified or substituted and then are the New Testament documents reliable and I read his material on the lie of the crucifixion and it was basically dependent upon accepting the

Acts of Peter which is a third century document as If it was actually given to Peter and he believes implicitly that it was given directly to Peter though it's a

Gnostic document and and is filled with Stuff that no Muslim could ever believe but hey as long as it supports his point against Christianity then it's cool, and we can just forget about the rest of stuff and Then there was stuff and And I I pointed this out

He he basically makes the argument that if any of the Gospels refer their own authors, then it must be bogus.

They must be frauds and so since Matthew records his own being called by Jesus then

Matthew's a fraud, but then he goes into John and We all know that John also talks about someone named

John the Baptist and Osama Abdullah Doesn't recognize there's a difference between John the

Apostle who wrote the gospel and John the Baptist who didn't write the gospel and So I pointed this out

I Pointed this out my opening statement So at that time he could have said hey, you know, sorry about that You know,

I I made a mistake instead he gets up after I've made my opening presentation and he repeats the same error and So I get up and I point out that he's repeated his error and I explain it more clearly

That John the Baptist is not John the Apostle one person wrote the gospel the other person didn't so his point is wrong

He gets up and repeats it again Third time I get up The next day when we're in the car driving to San Diego, I bring it up And he has never admitted that he was wrong

In fact, he never admitted any factual error despite the fact that I documented him. There is one

Isaiah 53 9 And he said well, you know here in Isaiah 53 9, you know,

I looked at at Young's literal translation of the

Bible and the word death is not in here. It's a lie. He says and so I obviously hadn't gone there specifically myself in my presentation, but What I did is since they were changing tapes

I had time In bringing up and putting my computer up there my

Mac to fire up Bible works under parallels and make sure that it was going to display properly and so I put

Isaiah 53 9 and anybody who would like to look at Isaiah 53 9 ESV says and they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death although he had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth and So I blew up the font so be nice and clear for everybody to see and I get up there and I display

Isaiah 53 9 and If you're familiar with Bible works, you know that if you put the cursor on the word

It will parse it right on the screen for you. And so I've just done that in Bible works on this computer and I put it on there and it gives you the

Particle particle preposition of the bait there in at by with or among and then below it You have the word for?

death Okay, so here's Bible works. It's not me It's a computer program a scholarly computer program

Defining the word there says Isaiah 53 9. Do you think that Osama Abdullah would ever admit he was wrong?

even driving down to San Diego the next day I Said to him sir. Do you read

Hebrew? No, he doesn't read Hebrew Okay, so you can see a computer program that gives you the definition.

I've taught the language I've got the text right here. I can show this to you.

Yeah, but I looked it up and young sir There is the word Kev air Kev air means grave

But that's before this where it's two words before this word you looked up the wrong word

Yeah, but young is literal you just Eventually what I said was obviously the sound system here does not work because in essence what was so frustrating

About Osama Abdullah. He's not another Achmed. Okay, he didn't behave like that.

He didn't even though he did cover 20 different topics Didn't stay on topic at all just do everything out there repeated stuff between debates and completely different topics

Was just standing there the podium scrolling through his website reading this reading that reading the next thing just throwing all just hoping something would stick and Everybody saw it.

I mean, I mean, you know you've got to remember there's an audience there and everyone saw it and everyone will see it when when those tapes are distributed and He just needs to understand that people see those kinds of things but what frustrated me even more than just Throwing everything out there and using all sorts of inconsistent arguments and stuff like that.

Was it it was like he stuck an iPod Earphones fired up his iPod or something when

I was up there. He didn't listen to me and Even when he tried to listen to me,

I guess He gets up after my opening presentation I had in talking about the

New Testament documents had pointed out that there were that there are fifty five hundred plus Catalogued manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament averaging somewhere around 200 pages apiece do the math about 1 .1 1 .2

million pages of text That we have to that we're looking at it's a lot of material

So the first time he gets up and says well James said that there's millions of manuscripts I didn't say there were millions of manuscripts.

In fact, I'm not just standing up there I've got a whole presentation going very nice presentation. In fact, very pretty very readable and it says 5 ,500 plus Greek manuscripts and Then the average manuscript 200 pages you do the math.

There you go. And so I'm just So I have to get up and I have to keep correcting

What he hasn't heard me say right the first time It's it's up the next time.

He says, okay. I'm sorry. So there's there's 1 .2 million words Actually, I'd given the exact number of words in the

Greek New Testament, but that's not the point and that's 138 ,000 so It I eventually got up and said there must be something wrong the sound system because clearly my opponent is not hearing a word

I'm saying and that's what was frustrating was that Both for me and then obviously for the audience is that if you're looking for a debate

You need to need to have debaters who actually hear what the other side's saying you can't have a debate if one side is just simply talking about a couple dozen different topics and Not even listening to what the other side's saying and when they do try to quote them.

They don't get him, right? And it was so painfully obvious that Osama Abdullah just did not understand what

I was saying He has no background in this field is just couldn't follow it along at all. And even then even then

We've got to the end I made my closing statement I made an argument once again,

I from Islamic sources and I mentioned Sahih al -Bukhari six five one nine five ten

And I read it it talks about the Ithmanic revision of the Quran the collection of the

Quranic materials Saeed bin Thabit and and Abu Bakr and and the the qurra who died at al -mam at the at the

Battle of Yamama and Concerned that a large portion of the

Quran could be lost if further of the qurra were to die and I Raised these issues and I was contrasting the centralized

Control of the text of the Quran with the non -centralized distribution the early manuscripts in the

New Testament and demonstrating that Counterintuitively that when you really think about it

The New Testament is in better shape because of that than the Quran could be as far as trustworthiness of those early manuscripts

Because when you have a centralized controlling authority that can make changes Well, then you've got some questions, but that was never an issue with the

New Testament There was never a centralized controlling group that had control of the New Testament so I had mentioned this and I sit down and as I'm up till it gets up and Not let me back up before I tell you what it says

Remember on Saturday, there were three debates. I debated first then David would debated

Farhan Qureshi on Can you trust the Quran and then we did the New Testament after that with me and Osama Abdullah so three debates that day was a long day and When Farhan Qureshi got up I was listening to his opening statement, even though I was next door

I was grabbing lunch that time and The whole beginning of his statement was based upon Sahih al -Bukhari six five one on five ten the very same hadith that I went through that talks about the gathering of the materials

And and the battle of your mama and the Qura and and all that stuff

He used as the foundation of his opening presentation and So with that in mind now,

I've read it and raised issues based upon it. And so Osama Abdullah gets up and he decides

That that's not a sahih hadith. That is not that isn't not a valid hadith and I'm I'm sitting here

Going you've got to begin because I know that that Muslim scholars have

Written entire books on this this section. I know he's making this up out of thin air and I know any knowledgeable Muslim and the audience could be going what is this guy talking about and so I happen to catch

Farhan Qureshi in the back of the room and he's sitting there shaking his head because Osama Abdullah just threw him under the bus

Because his whole statement had been based upon the soundness of that very same hadith and of course,

I didn't get to say anything about at that point in time because My this was the the end and I'd already done my closing statement and so on and so forth but I don't really need to say much about it because Knowledgeable Muslims are going to be realizing that Osama Abdullah is not one of them when they hear him making that kind of argumentation now

Osama Abdullah was very nice in person I Didn't have any problem, you know along those lines.

He did not behave in the irrational way that another Ahmed behaves all the time but when it came to debates someone who cannot hear the other side and Someone who thinks they already know all the answers, but actually doesn't know any of the answers at all

I saw no evidence that he was willing to learn. I saw no evidence that he was willing to ever admit a mistake

Even when the mistakes were absolutely glowing just as obvious as could be easily documented he he wouldn't

Wouldn't even even admit it So that's one of the reasons I so enjoyed the debate with Farhan Qureshi is because he was just the opposite of all those things

In my conversations with Farhan he would listen to me I would listen to him

There was meaningful exchange. He was willing to admit when I was right. I was willing to admit when he was right it was just a completely different world just just a completely different encounter and and when

David would had started his debate with Farhan Qureshi He had made some comments that a couple of us in the audience to sort of like well

Dave What are you talking about? Well ended up David knows Farhan better than I thought he did I guess he said this was there like fourth debate or something like that So they've debated before and once I got a chance to actually talk with Farhan after the the debates on Saturday and then all the way down to San Diego, we had a long conversation and and Then in San Diego and then during the debate.

I just found him to be Really a breath of fresh air in comparison to the vast majority of the of the

Muslims with whom I've had Contact he he's trying to listen to what I'm saying he's trying to respond to and he's trying to be consistent within his own religious worldview and he wasn't just doing the

I'm gonna grab any argument and Throw it at you routine, which is what? Sadly a large majority of Islamic apologists do

He tries to be consistent now. Obviously, I would say if he was completely consistent Stop being a

Muslim become a Christian but that's for for the Spirit of God to convince him of and if I can be an instrument and that I'll keep trying but the point was that the debate we had was significantly better because of that and Because of he also once he finished a point

Sat down. He didn't he didn't do what so many people do is you finish a point in the crossfire and okay

Now let's talk about 14 different other things here so no one can possibly follow any type of chain of discussion or thought or anything like that at all and so I I deeply appreciated that and still appreciate that and Would look forward to you know,

I as I said at the end of my closing statement there Farhan opened the The door for another debate in the future when he he said that we don't even know

What the the canon of Scripture was at the time of Muhammad and that's just not true when we're talking about Obviously the

Old New Testament, that's just not true we do know not only what the canon was but we know what the state of the text was too and I would be more than happy to demonstrate and document that but you see

Farhan's Farhan's the kind of guy That once I've challenged him on that He may just go and get himself some books and do some reading and go.

You know what? I was wrong Christians can make a good case they know what the state of their text was at that time and the canon was at that time and so I'm not just in debating it because My argument there wasn't a valid argument anyways, see he doesn't you know, for some reason there are some people some

Muslims I think Osama Abdul is one of them, but if they admit they made one mistake They think that that means their entire faith is invalid because they think they're defining their faith

Farhan realizes. He doesn't define his faith. I Made a mistake. I pointed out on the on the

YouTube thing I was speaking too quickly and just to give you some insight into what happens when you're trying to write too fast and think too fast

Farhan mentioned the phrase Alpha and Omega in the book of Revelation and he said that I was never used of God in the

Old Testament and So he immediately moved on another point and I'm trying to write

I was trying to write a In my notes I was trying to write down Exactly what

I wanted to say in response to his previous point at the same time listening to this one Then he's moving on to the next one.

And so I started to write Aleph and I don't know if I tried to write tau or if I was going to write

Aleph Wow tau which would be the Hebrew equivalent of Alpha and Omega Wow is the and But and look at my notes all

I got was Alpha and Wow Tau just disappeared I don't know if I just didn't I was gonna try to go back to it after I wrote down the next thing and Forgot, I don't know.

Did I just write Wow instead of tau? I don't can't even remember it was going by too quickly but if you watch the video

I say Aleph and Wow instead of Aleph and tau and Aleph Wow is not the last letter of the

Hebrew alphabet, even though it sounds like that's what I'm saying And I do know that But I misspoke because I was speaking too fast didn't even catch it myself just reading my notes moving along I'm thinking sort of like a chess player three or four moves down the down the road.

So I made a mistake I am NOT infallible the truth of the Christian faith does not depend on my writing down something

Too too quickly or anything like that. So We are we are fallible beings and I think that Farhan if you're to do that research would would go

Yeah, I'm not sure. I want to debate that particular subject Anyway, when we come back We've got a phone call to take and get back into the soul script tour debates and all sorts of stuff like that So eight seven seven seven five three, three, three, four one.

We'll be right back Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be

James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see

The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross -dressing ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism he insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom

James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply It is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant Reformation was founded Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org

Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you Dividing line on a

Tuesday morning. Let's go ahead and take our phone call

It's been waiting patiently for well most the time we've been on the air. Let's talk with Mike. Hi Mike. How you doing? Hello, Mike Hello, dr.

White. How are you, sir? I am doing very good Quick question. I'll try to be brief.

Um, I was I've been debating a JW at work recently and I use

Titus chapter 2 verse 13 and Granville Sharpe's rule right now

After reading the rule was that The rule does not work if either nouns or pronouns and since Theos has an article that would make it a pronoun

I was not sure on this. I've been trying to look at research. I don't have any Greek learning on my okay

I'm confused. Are you saying pronoun or proper noun? I'm sorry proper noun.

Okay, okay well Actually the rule states that that's in regards to names not proper nouns that would be the first thing and the article would not indicate that one way or the other an

Article does not indicate proper noun an article just indicates whether it's articular or not

You can have proper nouns even names can have articles in Greek so that that doesn't follow

Everyone all all Greek grammarians recognize that Titus 2 .13 is a Granville Sharpe construction.

That's not an issue There's my book The Forgotten Trinity has has a chapter that deals with this and so I would

I would recommend that to you I'd also recommend to you the section and Daniel Wallace's second -year grammar

He has I think somewhere around 80 pages on the subject of the Greek article and he has done

Extensive work in the Granville Sharpe constructions And so I would recommend that to you, but just just to try to make it understandable to you

I would present both Titus 2 .13 and 2nd Peter 1 .1 as my primary texts and both of them have contextual demonstration that The proper translation is

God and Savior in Titus 2 .13 The very fact that theos actually it's theo it's an adjenitive has the article 2 in front of it is

Necessary for a Granville Sharpe construction to exist. It's soteros that does not so it's the first the first noun has the article

The second one does not they're connected by Chi hence. They're both referring to Jesus Christ if he says that the

Article somehow makes something a proper noun proper nouns don't fit He doesn't understand what the what the what the rule is actually stating and he would basically say that no proper nouns could ever be used in a

Granville Sharpe construction because obviously in any Granville Sharpe construction the first noun has to have the article anyways, so he would be by definition

Getting rid of all Granville Sharpe constructions if his understanding was correct But there's two other things to recognize the context of Titus 2 is extremely strong I Can't go through it right now

But if you would look at the if you get a like a good reference Bible that will give you the background terms in Titus 2 14

Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness to purify from self people for his own possession who are zealous for good deeds?

Psalm 130 verse 8 for example the same terminology is used of Yahweh in fact you can trace

Verse 14 verbiage all through the Old Testament all in reference to Yahweh And what

I would point out is that there is no switching of persons back and forth in Titus 2 12 13 14

There's only one person in view He has to be inserting somebody in view That is never mentioned in the text because he has to make a distinction between Jesus and whoever he views

God as Yahweh or something like that and yet It's clearly talking about Jesus Christ in the terms of Yahweh in Titus 2 14 so you have contextual

Argumentation to make in in that one, then I would go to 2nd Peter and this one will help you

Does he use the New World Translation? Does he use the

New World Translation their translation, okay, take him to 2nd Peter 1 1 and Have him read 2nd

Peter 1 1 in the New World Translation the the end of the verse is going to say By the righteousness of our in in a good translation to say of the rights of our

God and Savior Jesus Christ He's gonna say of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ now if he has

What's called the kingdom interlinear translation it used to be a purple bound book now.

It's a blue bound book It was more fun was purple because we call it the purple people eater, but now it's blue And it's just sort of boring, but anyway if he has the kingdom interlinear interlinear translation have him look at it and then say okay, so You're saying that this doesn't work

That this should be our God and our Savior well if that's the case then look down at verse 11 in the

New World Translation And that one reads for in this way There will be richly provided for you any entrance into the eternal kingdom of our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ you can put the Greek of God and Savior Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior Jesus Christ right next to each other right out of the kingdom interlinear translation and They are

Absolutely Identical the only difference is Lord instead of God but Grammatically everything else word order everything is identical the

New World Translation will correctly Translate the Granville Sharp construction 2nd Peter 111

But it won't correctly translate the Granville Sharp construction and 2nd Peter 1 1 and the reason is not in the language

It is in their theology completely and totally in fact there are two more

Granville Sharp constructions in 2nd Peter and the New World Translation translates every single one of them correctly except for 2nd

Peter 1 1 and you can demonstrate that they're parallel in the original language

Therefore the only reason that they would make the distinction they do is because of their overriding theology their theology is not being derived from Scripture it is being derived from the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and they then translate scripture in light of that Overriding priority

Okay, thank you very much white very helpful Okay, remember the Forgotten Trinity, and there's also discussion of it in my book the

King James only controversy I'll look into those right away. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Okay. God bless bye -bye, okay?

Alrighty good good question because Titus 2 13 2nd Peter 1 1 did come up in the discussions in Regarding the deity of Christ as well, so you see how these things are related to one another you know some of you go

Yeah, you talk about Islam anymore. Well if you're talking about the deity of Christ the resurrection the Trinity the necessity of atonement the means of salvation

He said these are all things that of course are directly relevant to the the theological and apologetic task of the church on every level

And when the when the Muslims start attacking the validity of the New Testament manuscripts They're borrowing from Bart Ehrman.

They're borrowing from the Jesus seminar people see it's all related together and So you prepare for the one and you're actually preparing for many others at the same time

Now before I go back to the social return debate. I did want to address one other issue And it was in reference to some questions that I asked of my

Muslim friends this weekend and honestly, I don't believe I ever got a really good answer and If you have a

Quran and by the way, I would recommend that you that you do It's sort of hard to follow What's being said if you cannot look things up?

I'll be using since this is the most popular translation that I find in fact

I took my my Golden Gate class to the Tempe Masjid the mosque in Tempe the

Islamic Center and The Quran that they had available to give to people was the use of Ali translation so I figure if they're giving it away, then it's a it's a fair one to utilize and Surah 5

I Want to read you a portion of this and I want you to follow the argument because I keep asking

Muslims to do this and It is amazing how many of them do not know their

Quran very well at all they may know certain sections but the idea of actually contextualizing the

Quran placing it in the in the historical context they insist that it had and Placing in the context of look here's

Muhammad trying to establish his own prophet hood. Here's Muhammad arguing for his own prophet hood so Wouldn't his arguments have to be good arguments wouldn't these have to be arguments that we can follow today and Doing that is really unusual so many

Muslims just approach the Quran as if it's a sort of a magical text You know that's why they don't put other books on top of it, and they have these little stands

You're supposed to put it on and it's almost a magical text rather than a text that existed in history and Relates the real words of Muhammad because Muhammad is is is trying to reason with the people of the book the people of the gospel and he's making arguments for his prophet hood and So we pick up the argument in surah 541 and this is allegedly

Allah speaking to Muhammad Oh Apostle Let not those grieve thee who race each other into unbelief whether it be among those who say we believe with their lips

But whose hearts have no faith or it be among the Jews men who will listen to any lie

Will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee They change the words from their right times and places

They say if you're given this take it But if not beware if anyone's trials intended by Allah thou has no authority in the least for him against the law

For such it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts For them there is disgrace in this world and the hereafter a heavy punishment, so there's basically

Muhammad don't be overly grieved by how many people don't believe you There are a lot of people say they believe, but they don't really believe their people want to believe lies

So on so forth so there's there's a word to Muhammad here ayah 42 they are fond of listening to falsehood of Devouring anything forbidden if they do come to thee either now listen to this

There's where you need to focus him either judge between them or declined interfere if they decline

They cannot hurt thee in the least if thou judge judge and equity between them for a law love of those who judge inequity so there's supposed to be some judging going on here and Remember Muhammad eventually is in charge in Medina.

He sort of functions as a judge It's not just Muslims at that time in Medina. There were Jews in Medina at that time of course at one point

Muhammad kills many many of them by beheading them after a battle But he goes on But they but why do they come to thee for decision when they have their own laws before them?

Therein is the plain command of Allah yet even after that they would turn away For they are not really people of faith now.

Did you hear what he says? Why they come to you they have their own laws before them

Therein is the plain command of Allah there in what their laws we're talking about Jews here We know in the hadith at one point that The Torah was brought before Muhammad, and he got up off the cushion

He was sitting on and had the Torah placed upon the cushion in a place of respect. He says I believe everything It's in this book

He didn't know it was in this book, but he said he believed it if he was a prophet He would have known what was in it, and that's one of the reasons

I don't believe his prophet is because he didn't know what was in it. He ended up contradicting it, but it seems he believed

He claimed to believe it and it seems like he thought that he believed it But he was simply ignorant of what was actually in it

But notice what he says that Therein is the plain command of Allah. It was we who revealed the law to Moses.

I have 44 Therein was guidance and light Now it seems to me pretty obvious that for the writer of this material

That law that was still in the possession of the Jews had been revealed by Moses now today

They they want to try to argue. Oh, it's been all corrupted blah blah By its standard have been judged the

Jews by the prophet who bowed as in Islam to Allah's will by the rabbis and the doctors of law for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book and They were witnesses there to therefore fear not men

But fear me and sell not my signs for a miserable price if any do fail to judge by the light of what

Allah hath Revealed they are no better than unbelievers Now it sounds to me like what's being said is

Allah has revealed his word It's been given to these people and they are to judge by the light that's therein

But they're not doing so if they are men of faith, they would do so I have 45 we ordained therein for them life for life

I for I nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal that's called the lex talionis and I mentioned

In the debate that Muhammad never quotes from the Old Testament. So I might say well he does right here

The lex talionis is quoted more than once But that doesn't mean that he's quoting directly from the

Old Testament that I for an eye of tooth for a tooth how many people today? Can say those words they've actually never read those words in the

Old Testament And I think each of the two times there's one from the Psalms and there's one from here each of the two times

That you might say yes that this is found in the Old Testament. The question is is Muhammad quoting the

Old Testament I don't think that he is he's he's heard these oral things He's heard these things in preaching, but he does not have direct access to the

Old Testament It is interesting the other place in the Psalter does seem to indicate that Muhammad believes the

Psalter was given by Allah as well and There are some

Muslims. They would want to argue about that. But anyway So there's a quotation lex talionis in in surah 545 but if anyone remits the

Retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself And if they fail to judge by the light of what

Allah hath revealed they are no better than wrongdoers And so what he's saying is it's okay to go by the lex talionis

I for I but if anyone remits the retaliation by way Of charity it is an act of atonement for Himself then following this so what do we have here?

We have Moses receiving words from Allah There's guidance in it so on so forth. I have 46 got to pick up the pace here and in their footsteps

We sent Jesus the Son of Mary Confirming the law that had come before him. How could

Jesus confirm a law? That no longer existed in days of Jesus. How could

Jesus confirm a lot no longer exist in days of Jesus? Did the law that had been nuts all sent down from Allah to Moses did it exist in the days of Jesus?

Could it have lasted for 12 or 1400 years that's an important question.

There's a reason why I'm asking this We sent him the gospel

Therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him a guidance and admonition to those who fear

Allah Now Muslims will say I see it's gospel not gospels as if the

Gospels together Do not refer to the gospel and give us the message of Jesus Christ the gospel is a normative

New Testament term for the message of Jesus Christ and Muslims really need to start learning more about the

Bible Because most of them who defend their faith don't but interesting Farhan mentioned to me yeah, but we're told not to ask the people the book about their book and The early

Muslims didn't if there are guidance then it's almost like a catch -22 situation that they're at But anyways, I'm now getting to the main point here.

I have 47 Let the people of the gospel gospel in Jill Judge by what

Allah hath revealed therein if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed

They are no better than those who rebel now think about for a moment Let the people the gospel judged by what

Allah hath revealed who is he referring to I heard some Mighty wild speculation this weekend about Odd groups, you know, it's obvious.

He's talking about Christians He's talked about the Jews. Now. Is he talking talking about the

Christians and He says let the people of the gospel judged by what

Allah hath revealed there in Osama Osama Abdullah tried to get around this by saying that's the Old Testament law.

That's just the direct words of God in the Old Testament Therein means therein therein what what's the antecedent the in Jill?

So the people of the gospel are to judge by what Allah hath revealed therein now judgments been a theme all the way through this

How could the people of the gospel judge in? The days of Muhammad if they no longer possessed it

Now we know what they possessed We can demonstrate what they possessed And this wasn't some different message about Jesus just being a prophet and directing everybody to be

Muslims and bow down to Allah It's clear to me that the author of this material thought that the

Torah and the gospel were teaching the same things he was teaching and So if you wanted to if you want to say that Muhammad was honestly mistaken go ahead and say he was honestly mistaken

But you still have to say he was mistaken Because we know what the gospel was and so I keep asking

Muslims How could anyone if this is an argument because because notice how the argument goes we've got we've got

God gave it to Moses God gave it to Jesus now look at 48 to thee We sent the scripture and truth confirming the scripture that came before it and guarding it in safety

So judge between them by what Allah hath revealed and fallen out their vain desires

Diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. So this is talking to Muhammad So you see there's a step here

Moses Jesus Muhammad Break that chain and you're destroying Muhammad's own argument for his own prophet hood.

And so I asked the question How could the people of the gospel judge

By what Allah because remember you serve for you're supposed to serve for 136.

You're supposed to believe in The books plural that Allah has sent down Let the people the gospel judged by what

Allah hath revealed therein if they don't possess that they can't judge by it We've already seen the

Jews possess that by which they should be judging themselves and their condemnation Is that they're not judging themselves by it

Allah gave that to them Same thing now the the people the gospel

So it seems to me that the Muslim is in a real catch -22 here He's in a real difficult spot because if the argument that Muhammad makes for his own prophethood makes any sense

Then all this attacking of the Old and New Testament that has become the very essence and heart of Islamic apologetics in the modern period and Honest Muslims admit was not a part of the first centuries of Islamic experience

That's not how they did these things They didn't attack the Bible But now it's become the very part and parcel of how they deal with these things that entire argument

Makes no sense in the light of their own scriptures. So I want to ask the honest

Muslim How can the people of the gospel how could let's contextualize?

Let's not even talk about the 1400 years that have passed since then Let's talk about when the when when

Muhammad recites this surah That day and maybe he does so in public and there are people there and people go out and begin to recite this to other people and It says let the people of the gospel

Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. What did those words mean?

What did they mean? how could they do it and If you're going to be honest to the context honest with it, you're stuck having to say that the gospel did exist in the days of Muhammad and That Muhammad was making reference to what we call the

New Testament and That he did believe it was sent down by God and he did believe that what he said about Jesus Was consistent with what was contained therein and he was wrong.

That means he wasn't a prophet by his own words But you have to change his words you have to change

Those things that he gave To get around what they actually mean and if you have to do that my friend

I'm telling you your religion isn't true and If you love the truth, you're gonna believe the truth

Are you really willing to examine these things? The sad thing is in many nations For me to have just said that To have honestly tried to deal with the text.

I'm not twisting anything. You show me where I'm twisting something I'm trying to to be honest with this text and to handle it, right in Sharia law nations

I would be executed The very worst I'd be expelled a very least

I'd be expelled Then I'd be imprisoned or I might be beaten or in many places.

I would be executed for blaspheming the

Prophet How many Muslims actually even take the time to try to deal with the Quran on this level?

Even think these things through to contextualize it and yet we try to do that and well, you see what happens

It's amazing thing. It's an amazing thing. But I think we need to look at these things and recognize that that is

That is the case. So I present that argument obviously didn't have the time to develop it as fully as I did today

In the debates and I did not get I believe a consistent historical fair Response to that argument and so I would recommend that to folks because I I think that When you have opportunity to engage the subject,

I really do believe that that is an important Argument an important thing that needs to be brought forward something that they need to be made to think of so London still coming up still need your support for the ministry

Obviously, we know everybody's hurting these days and as I said on the blog Your first and foremost priority is taking care of that local church where the

Word of God is preached But when you've done so if you want to help us to continue to do the things that we do

We really do need to hear from you. There is a link on the website as to how you can do that London is still coming up just got word from one of my dear brothers

Today that I'm gonna have a really cool opportunity that I can't tell you anything about until it's all over with I'm in London, but it's really cool.

You just have to trust me about that another opportunity of Introducing folks to the gospel of Jesus Christ who

Jesus Christ really is so great things going on Thank you for your support. Keep praying for us. We'll see you on Thursday. God bless

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at P .o

Box three seven one zero six, Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at a omin Org, that's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks