October 13, 2005

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 at 602 -973 -4602, or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Well, good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line. On a

Thursday evening, we continue the series that we began Tuesday morning. We are reviewing a debate which took place about five years ago now between Shabbir Ali, one of the preeminent

Islamic apologists, at least in English speaking nations, against Sam Shamoun, a good friend of the ministry here on the subject of the

Bible and the Koran. And so we continue with that. We're about 26 minutes,

I believe, into the entirety of the debate. If you want to, there is a link, by the way, there is a link on our website to the entirety of the debate.

If you want to sort of listen ahead, in essence, catch everything, have some background to what's going on, you can download and listen to the debate in MP3 format.

I don't know how anyone survives today without MP3s, but there are still a few who are struggling along those lines.

But be that as it may, they are available to you. There is a link on the website where you can track down the very same debate without my constant interruptions, if that bothers you.

But that's the whole reason we're doing this, of course, is to provide a fuller response to the claims that are made by Shabir Ali.

Listening to many of his other debates, these are common claims that are made by not just himself, but then they are picked up by others and repeated somewhat ad nauseam.

And those of you who have listened to the John Dominic Crossan debate will hear many of the same elements.

There are differences, but we'll hear many of the same elements, especially in regards to the alleged corruption of the

Christian scriptures in a very, very early period of time, etc., etc. So we pick up 26 minutes and 30,

I'm starting at 31 seconds, I had 33 in my notes, but we'll get two seconds of context there.

26 minutes into the first of the three MP3s, and so we continue now.

We are in Shabir Ali's opening statement. Now, of course, the argument being made there is that if someone can be confused about a text, it must not be the word of God, which, of course, would would invalidate anything because a vast majority of Christians are extremely confused by the text of the

Quran. I would argue that it is significantly harder to understand the

Quran than it is the Bible. The Bible has a historical background. It provides a historical context.

The vast majority of its text, you know something about its authors and where they lived and and the time frame.

And there's some chronological order. The very form of the Quran precludes that kind of historical material.

And if you will pick up books by Muslims on the background of the Quran, they are frequently talking about the fact that, well, you know, we don't we sort of figure that this is one of this.

This one was is relevant to Medina or this one to Mecca or there. There seems to be a part of this here and a part of that there.

But, you know, it doesn't say. So we're not really sure. We don't have that. And in fact, the the without the

Hadith, you can't make heads or tails out of entire sections of the

Quran. And so if that is a criteria, then I would argue that it is significantly easier to understand the

Gospel of Mark than it is almost any section of the Quran. You can place Mark and Luke in a historical background.

You've got the Romans. You've got the Jews. You've got you've got landmarks. You've got you've got a way of contextualizing this.

And any text is going to be only as clear as the context in which you can place it.

That's that's why if you want to write something unclear, if you want to feed on people's conspiracy theories or you don't want to be held accountable for what you're saying, then you write a text that has no connections like that.

And we could talk about somehow some of this is rather interesting in trying to connect it to the Book of Mormon and and various sundry elements like that.

It is interesting to keep seeing these parallels as they keep popping up. But as it may, that's that's not a meaningful criteria that Shabir Ali has just has just indicated.

If we say, for example, that God would not describe things using a gratuitous mention of sexual imagery and we find that untrue, then we can say this is not the

Word of God. Now, you might want to actually at a couple of points be aware of the fact that in the midst of this debate, a discussion of certain language in the

Book of Ezekiel that makes reference to genitalia comes up in this debate.

And Mr. Ali, who does not have a biblical homartiology, a biblical doctrine of sin and the fall of man, finds it extremely offensive and in fact, in his opinion, gratuitous that the

Bible makes reference to the idolatry of Israel in very graphic terms.

Of course, the idolatry that Israel was involved with was, in fact, very graphic. What took place in the groves, the

Asherim, the high places that are mentioned over and over and over again in the Old Testament. Temple prostitution was not done behind closed doors.

It was out in the open. And when the prophets used language that these people would fully understand they're involved in horrific, idolatrous practices.

Mr. Ali says this is gratuitous. I reject his assertion that this is gratuitous in any way, shape, or form.

He just doesn't understand how serious idolatry is and what God is doing in Ezekiel.

The funny thing is, however, is that it is very clear, and I would love to see

Shabir Ali try to prove this, that the scriptures that existed at the time of Christ included all the things that he rejects as the word of God.

That's from Ezekiel. We know what the text of Ezekiel looked like in the days of Christ. Did Christ correct that? Instead, you have citations from Ezekiel, you don't have anyone rejecting that saying, that's not the word of God.

You don't have that happening. And so, even the Torah that Muhammad would have been familiar with and that the

Koran speaks so highly of would have included those very same things. And so I would submit that Shabir Ali is setting himself up as an authority beyond the

Koran and beyond Muhammad in making these kind of statements. Muhammad never rejected Ezekiel.

You don't have a statement from him, Ezekiel is not the word of God. This is an assertion on Shabir Ali's part that just simply doesn't make sense historically.

That the Koran would say the things it does about the Torah and the Injil given the textual history.

And for some reason, the fact that Islam comes along over half a millennium after the canon of scripture has been closed after everything has been written and all of a sudden we're going to start changing things around saying ours is the authentic version requires a significantly higher standard of proof than Shabir Ali is ever willing to offer.

At least in that part. So while we might not have a way of absolutely proving that the text is the word of God if we start with certain assumptions

I have a question for the second... I just realized

I... OK, my apologies, my apologies mucho apologies here for some odd reason the system opened up the second of the two instead of the first of the two and put it above the first of the two

I don't know why shouldn't have done that and ironically that was smack dab in the middle of pretty much the same material we were looking at so we're going to hit that one again

I apologize that was completely unintentional on my part and since the recording quality is the same and Shabir Ali was speaking on the same subject at the same point that's 26 minutes and 31 seconds into the second mp3 my apologies now we'll go to 26 minutes and 31 seconds into the first of them and I was wondering how in the world they got questions in there that quickly it wasn't supposed to do that so I apologize very much let's go back to where we were that is where we were because I had made the comment to recognize that Solomon toward the end of his life engaged in idolatry is to learn a tremendous lesson here is a man who has given everything in fact he was given wisdom from God but over time if you do not remain focused upon your spiritual life even to someone like Solomon this can take place so we can learn things from this

Mr. Ali takes a completely different perspective and says, well, why should I read a book that was written by an idolater

Solomon was not an idolater when he wrote the book I mean, there's just no logic to that Nebuchadnezzar says true things in Daniel chapter 4 he says very true things but he was a pagan does that mean that the things he said were not true?

again, there's just no logical reason to take this kind of a perspective and to run with it the way that he does if one starts from Christianity understanding the

Bible already and then reads the Quran one has to be totally impressed now notice that terminology have been cleaned up assumption, corruption of the biblical text which the

Quran itself if we listen to Sam's presentation the Quran itself is not making that assertion this is a much more modern

Islamic apologetic assertion and it then requires some kind of substantiation outside of just simply quoting liberal scholars as if somehow that proves your point somewhere along the lines but notice that terminology cleaning up well, what needs to be cleaned up well, only that which a

Muslim might miss the point of, evidently such as the example Solomon has given what do

I mean by that? if you look, for example at the story in the Bible concerning Lot now there's a lesson there for humankind those of us who will see it ok, here's gonna be a consistent assertion on the part of Mr.

Ali evidently if a word is to be from God then it must be something you don't have to explain to kids there can be no clear representation of the actual depth of the sin of man there can be none of those troubling sections in the

Old Testament where people do things that just absolutely shock us now of course you know, we look around today and who are doing things that absolutely shock us you know, people walking into crowded restaurants with backpacks on and blowing themselves up or slowly sawing peoples heads off on video, who's doing those things today?

oh, those are Muslims doing those things today, yes, ok that kind of stuff happens man is sinful and the

Bible is honest about the sinfulness of man and when it has a point to make when it has a warning to give then it is very clear in doing that and do you have to explain parts of the

Bible? are there parts of the Bible you wouldn't necessarily want to read to a 7 year old before you've had an in depth discussion of the birds and the bees?

you better believe it does that mean it's not the word of God? well, only if you think the word of God can only be on a kindergarten level that's the only way you can come up with that kind of a conclusion there's just no logical or rational reason to believe that do you have to explain what happened with what?

with the fact that his daughters though they were rescued from Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously not regenerate individuals that sometimes non -regenerate individuals benefit from God's mercy isn't that part and parcel of what ends up you know being a part of the warnings of scripture?

most definitely, do you have to explain that? most definitely, does that mean it's not the word of God? most definitely not there's no basis no ground that has been offered to us by Mr.

Ali to even begin to accept that kind of argumentation it's just thrown out there as if well, if you have to explain it to your kids then it must not be the word of God sorry, that does not follow rather than move backwards why not give them the pure word of God?

why assume that since the Quran seems to give either just a no of all that stuff and then ignore it

I mean to retell a story you don't have to tell every single part of it

I'm not faulting the Quran for not including every bit of information that's one thing but let's say that there's a purpose behind it, let's say that Muhammad didn't like the story didn't like the rest of the story in regards to Lot what does that mean?

how does that make that pure? isn't the real issue wouldn't the proper discussion have to be focused upon really, first and foremost what was originally written what was the text of the book of Genesis 700 years before the time of Christ what was the book of the text of Genesis 100 years before Muhammad and can you prove this alleged change see

Muslims just simply begin with the assumption that this last quote unquote revelation is the final word and therefore anything that comes before it is to be corrected by it that is the functional methodology behind that particular kind of mindset and it will come up over and over again in the discussion now,

Jeremiah 8 .8 how can you say we are wise and the law of the

Lord is with us but behold the lying panda scribes has made it into a lie now notice he uses the term has falsified it has made it a deception a falsehood the secretaries, the scribes have falsified it now what does that mean does that mean that the

Torah that Josiah received was not the Torah that it did not exist any longer that it had been corrupted or do you continue the context the wise men shall be put to shame they shall be dismayed and taken behold they have rejected the word of the

Lord so that wisdom is in them therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain from prophet to priest everyone deals falsely etc.

etc. etc. so what is actually being discussed here is this somehow an assertion that they have been able to corrupt the

Torah so that it no longer is available or is this the same kind of condemnation that we find throughout

Matthew chapter 23 that though they possess the law of God though they possess the scriptures they nullify them they make them of no account for the sake of their traditions for the sake of their disobedience they have as the very next verse says the wise men shall be put to shame they shall be dismayed and taken behold they have rejected the word of the

Lord rejected the word of the Lord not altered it so no one knows what it is they know what it is but they've rejected it they have turned it into a lie they who were supposed to be the ones who teach the word of God they have turned it into a lie how have they turned it into a lie they've turned it into a lie by the means of course of their behavior by the means of their teaching etc etc now make sure you understand hear what he's saying parts of it are not the word of God well what parts?

what are the parts that disagree with me? the parts that disagree with the Quran where have we heard this before?

it's just amazing to me to listen to this and I cannot help I'm not saying that there's 100 % corollary

I'm just simply saying that over and over again I go man this is exactly what you encounter with Mormons when you

I've told the story before when years and years ago during the

Easter pageant in the Mormon church in Mesa I was talking to a Mormon lady over in the parking lot of the

Arby's restaurant next to the sidewalk and I said I went through a number of passages

I quoted Isaiah 43 .10 and 45 .5 -6 and 44 .24 and all these passages about the fact there's only one true

God is there a God besides me? yea there is no God I know not any etc etc and I went through all this and she just listened quietly she didn't say anything and she didn't argue either and so finally

I stopped and I'm like so what does that mean?

do you have any comment? she said well all those verses are mistranslated and I said they're mistranslated do you read

Hebrew? no I don't read Hebrew have you read any books about Hebrew that would lead you to say they're mistranslated?

no I've not read any books about that well how do you know they're mistranslated? because they disagree with what the church teaches there's your ultimate authority coming into direct and clear play and on that level leading you to make a conclusion for which you have absolutely positively no historical evidence none it's just simply an open statement that says you know what my ultimate authority says this and therefore if your ultimate authority disagrees with my ultimate authority then your ultimate authority has been corrupted and that way you can still say you believe in some of Genesis just not all of Genesis see that's how it functions lots of interesting parallels here now look at the story of Noah it's not key it's not key holy absent from the

Bible you've got to be kidding me Shabir Ali does not understand the moral teaching of Noah in the

Bible in regards to their sin and their debauchery and the fact that what they are doing is displeasing in the sight of God I I at that point it would be very difficult even if the even if the camera was right on me to keep from just looking at him with the most amazed look on my face because I'm sorry that's just simply a ridiculous statement on the other hand the

Bible tells us in the story of Noah why not now where have you heard this before if you have spent almost any time at all scanning through I remember years and years ago when

I first encountered the publication Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKenzie an atheist and almost every single atheist publication

I have ever encountered one of the very first things that they try to pull up is well see you know

God God you've got these contradictions because God doesn't change his mind but this says that God changed his mind and blah blah blah and I'm like here we go again right back to the same old same old stuff and you would think

I don't know maybe I'm being silly here but I would think you know I hear

Shabir Ali quoting the Quran in Arabic okay that's a good thing to be able to do so that would imply some knowledge of Semitic languages and that would provide some means

I would assume I mean the man has a bachelors degree in comparative religions he's not gone beyond that but he calls himself self -taught that would mean certainly the information about what

Nakam means would be available to him in some context and he would be able to look into what

Azav means and he'd be able to look into these words and he'd be able to understand what grieving is and what repentance is when applied to God and he would at least honestly face the reality that God is presented in the scriptures as interacting with his people and that the sin of mankind is not presented as something that leaves him unmoved but he doesn't do that he doesn't go beyond the basic atheist level attack of the scriptures

I would think that that would be simple for him to do I would think that the material would be available to him to look at those things and to go well okay you know if I follow this term through the scriptures and I look at how it applies to God and I look at how

God responds to the sinfulness of mankind and all the rest of these things there actually is a way of seeing how that fits in with the greatness of the sacrifice that is given in Christ and I look at the story of Abraham and Isaac and well okay there's more to it here than meets the eye but that's not what you get and again isn't he going to have to do very similar things in regards to the

Quran so it's this inconsistency this utilization of different standards that comes up over and over and over and over and over again in the course of this debate but what happens there in Genesis chapter 6 versus 1?

Wow God never had any grandsons well you know that completely ignores what the discussion of sons of God in Genesis 6 means there's all sorts of different possibilities it's not the easiest text in the world but at least you know you don't approach difficult text in a simplistic manner like this this is not talking about God's grandsons as if God is some pagan

God out there having literal offspring and of course in reality

Genesis 6 -5 got skipped somehow I mean I'm sure it was just an oversight which says the

Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thought of his heart was only evil continually and that's what brings about the flood and that is contradictory to Shabir Ali's view of sin and man and that is why

Shabir Ali is misrepresenting the Bible in his attempts to attack the

Bible but of course in the process you get to excite all the Muslims in the audience by testifying that there is only one

God Allah and so on and so forth we'll continue with our review of Shabir Ali's opening statement and we're going to take a break be right back right after this

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 that 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 aomen .org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the

Gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and the worship service is at 1045.

Evening services are at 630 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE. If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality.

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law.

In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same -Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.

Get your copy in the bookstore at AOMIN .org. You are listening to Shabir Ali's opening statement.

He was just talking about God's grandkids in yet another gross misreading of the

Biblical text. Let's continue on. This story shows a discontent... Excuse me?

No, sir. That's quite simply just your ignorance of the language.

I mean, again, this kind of level of argumentation, well, you know, the imagery that might give to someone, well, you know,

I could... there's all sorts of imagery in the Quran that I could say, well, that's offensive to me.

That might communicate something to me that I find contradictory, so I reject the Quran. This is not meaningful argumentation.

And to say that... Luke's language is very careful. Luke is a physician. There's nothing in any way, shape, or form to substantiate that kind of assertion.

That's just... I don't know if maybe just the people that he's debated in the past just don't have the guts to stand up and say, that's dumb.

But that's dumb. There's just absolutely no reasoning behind that whatsoever.

There's no question we're talking about the beginning of human life, but we're talking about the Holy Spirit overshadowing.

Look at the background of that language. That has nothing to do with some gross physicality.

Again, just ridiculous. Who cares?

Who cares? Many people have gained images from the

Quran that you would reject. What is the only thing that matters?

What the text meant in its original language, in its original context. I don't care how someone might misunderstand it.

That is irrelevant to the nth degree. There are many ignorant people in the world.

And you cannot change the Word of God or reject the Word of God based upon ignorant people.

You just can't do that. I mean, would Shabir Ali, if I were to start digging through the

Quran and say, Oh, look at this. This suggests this to me. Would he find that to be meaningful argumentation?

I would certainly hope not. In other words, since the

Quran is simplistic, since the Quran does not communicate with the level of information the

Bible does, well that must be the Word of God. Because we don't want to have anything we have to explain now. We want it to be so direct, so plain, that there can be no questions, there can be no confusion.

That evidently is what makes something the Word of God. And you know, when you read the Hadith, that actually isn't a bad observation.

Because what the Hadith do is they tell you how to live your life step by step.

This is how you do everything. It's not a matter of developing a heart of wisdom and godliness and then applying it to different situations.

And that, folks, is why Islam is not a religion for all peoples.

That's why when Islam comes into a nation, it has to destroy that which came before it and make it an

Islamic nation. Whereas the Gospel is a message for all nations because a heart of wisdom and godliness can exist within numerous different cultures.

See the difference? That's a major difference and a very important difference. And I would argue that is a difference that demonstrates that one is the

Word of God and one clearly is not. Tell us what that means?

It means that Jesus was truly God and truly man and that his conception was not the result of physical action from a fallen human male.

What's difficult about that? If the Holy Spirit can create life, are you telling me he cannot conceive life in the womb of a woman without physicality and sexuality?

Is that what is actually being suggested here? I would certainly hope not, but it certainly sounds like it.

You've got to understand what is behind all this. What is behind all this is the assumption, and if you've seen the debate with the

Hamza Abdu 'l -Malik, it came up over and over again there too. The assumption is

God cannot, even if God created this universe, the God of Islam cannot enter into his own creation.

Cannot be done. Impossible. Can't be done. Can't be done. God may have created it.

God can't enter it. Once he made it, incarnation can't happen. Uh -uh.

That's it. Just a given. And so when the Bible actually describes that tremendous and unique event, well, we just can't understand that.

We just can't understand that. And so we reject that, and that's what you see going on here.

So for Shabir Ali, confirm actually means to change, alter, or to fix corruptions.

That's what allegedly the term is actually referring to. Now, let's make sure.

Sam began by asserting that there is only one true triune God. And again, if you watch the debate with Hamza Abdu 'l -Malik, you'll know that one of the great frustrations, one of the great frustrations that you face in dealing with Muslims is that Muslims cannot allow

Christians to define Christian faith. They cannot allow Christians to define

Christian faith because the Quran and Muhammad misunderstood the

Christian faith. Now, there's various reasons for that. Any introductory text on the subject of Islam will tell you that the sources from which

Muhammad would draw for his understanding of Christianity would have included a number of religious groups that, shall we say, would be heretical from a modern perspective and, in fact, from even an ancient perspective.

There were all sorts of, down in the Arabic Peninsula, all sorts of influences, monophysitism,

Nestorianism, and, without getting into a big argument about well, did

Nestorius actually believe what later Nestorians did? Evidently, I don't think he did, but, be it as it may, all of that stuff aside, there were clearly individuals that he would have had contact with that would not have been capable of communicating an orthodox, soundly biblical perspective.

Now, if the Quran is what the

Islamic religion claims it to be, the very words of Muhammad, I'm sorry, the very words of Allah, then you would think that at least

Allah would understand what Christians believe about the Trinity. You would think there would at least be an accurate representation of the doctrines of the

Trinity, but there is not. Very clearly, there is tremendous misunderstanding of what the doctrines of the

Trinity is, and even at that, the term Trinity, and some translations of the Quran use the term

Trinity, but actually, it's just the word for three, and that three seems to be

Allah, Jesus, and Mary, and maybe there were even some wild -eyed people that Muhammad had run into that worshipped

God, Jesus, and Mary. I don't know. How are we supposed to know that? But, be it as it may, there is clear misrepresentation, and you either have to conclude that the

Quran is only condemning a certain sect of Christianity, or it just doesn't understand the doctrines of the

Trinity at all, one of the two. That's what you have to deal with in regards to how the

Quran represents what we're dealing with, and so, when we try to find the

Trinity, Muslims will always default back to the perspectives of the

Quran. And so, if you watch that debate, I can sit there and repeat myself over and over again.

There is only one true God. Trinitarianism is monotheistic.

The negation of monotheism is not Trinitarianism. The negation of monotheism is polytheism.

The negation of Trinitarianism is what? Unitarianism. And so, to say that God is one, as Islam does, and as Unitarians do, is a different issue.

Now we're talking about persons, not beings. You can see why you actually have to understand the doctrines of the

Trinity to be able to dialogue on these subjects. And so, it's frustrating because they'll keep defaulting back.

The Bible all across says that there's only one true God. Amen! We agree! No question about it.

Well, I would very much like that. Let me get the Quran out of the way here.

Did I get somebody all fired up? Maybe? I wasn't expecting this, but I'm very thankful to be able to punch a button here and hopefully talk to a familiar voice.

Sam Shamoon. Hi, Sam. Hey, brother. Brother White, how are you doing, Dr. White? I'm doing good.

Have you been listening in at all? Yeah, I just came in the midst of it. I wish I was here from the start. I would have called, but...

Where were you five years ago? I was debating Hamzah Abdul -Malik five years ago, actually.

You're doing a great job pairing this guy up. Well, you know, as I listened, and I mentioned my email to you, as I listened to this

Saturday morning, how close was... Let me just ask you some questions. How close was the audience to you? They were maybe, what, ten feet away from us.

The first two rows were full of these oversized Middle Eastern Christians. And that's why, if you remember in his opening statements, he said,

I see a lot of leery eyes. Yes, he did. Because the first two rows were full of my buddies, and these all, you know, bodybuilding freaks.

And they were just looking at him like they were about to, you know, have him for lunch. I've been in situations like that.

I've been in situations where I was the only Protestant in a room full of Catholics, actually.

So now, I was listening to this stuff, and I knew, I could not help but thinking over and over again, boy,

Sam finally understands the frustration that happens in a debate when your time frame is half the time frame of the preceding guy.

Yeah, you noticed it, huh? Well, you can't help it. I mean, it's, you know, you look at the book Debating Calvinism.

I have half as many words as Dave Hunt had, and you just, you have to make this decision. Alright, what's the most important in what was just said?

And you always have to let stuff go. And the problem is, you brought up all sorts of stuff in your opening statement.

You quoted from the Quran. You brought up all these statements. And he did not even make an attempt to start to deal with what you had said.

And so what he's doing is he starts throwing all this stuff out there, and really, it's an attempt on his part to not have to get into the details of what you brought up in regards to answering the simple question of, look, if the

Quran can say this about the Torah, if the Quran can say this about the Injil, knowing what that text was in the days of Muhammad, how can you say the things you're now saying?

And he never ever got around to answering that. He can't, because it's a dilemma that no Muslim can get out of.

If the Quran says the Bible is true, and yet the Bible contradicts the

Quran, then that means the Quran is a false book. But to attack the Bible is to discredit the Quran, which says the

Bible is true. And so what he wants to try to do is to say, well, all the

Quran is saying is that parts of the Bible are true. And we were just listening to the section where he was going through Genesis, and he went through Lot, and then he went to the

Annunciation story, and he was just trying to turn it into a gross, sexual discussion, and so on and so forth.

And yet, in your readings, Sam, when did this kind of apologetic develop in Islam?

Because I don't see it in the Quran. And when did

Muslims start making this kind of an application? Well, according to some sources, the first gentleman that introduced the attack on the

Bible was a Muslim in Spain named Ibn Khazim, or Hazim, however you want to pronounce his name, which was about maybe 300 to 400 years after Muhammad's time.

So he made the first systematic attempt of dissecting and trying to destroy the Bible's credibility by alleged discrepancies and its contradictions with the

Quran. But if you go prior to that, if you look at the Quran itself, and the so -called narrations attributed to Muhammad, what is commonly referred to as the

Hadith, you'll find that Muhammad has nothing but praise for the Scriptures, because he assumed that the

Bible confirmed his prophetic claims. And I thank God, again, I see it as providence of the

Lord, because again, I just want to preface one thing. Just because the Quran says the Bible's true, that doesn't mean that the

Bible's true. The Bible can be false, and that means that the Quran is bearing witness to a false book.

But for the Muslim, he doesn't have that option. He can't argue those lines. He must join me in defending the

Bible and its inerrancy. But in so doing, he falsifies Muhammad. So they have no way out of this.

Well, other than to engage in the kind of blustering, debating tactics that we're listening to right now, and to basically start throwing out warmed -up

John Dominic Crossan claims, which really is Raymond Brown, just throw

Raymond Brown out there, and all will be well. That's what's taking place. It is interesting what you just mentioned, because again, this is where people need to understand world history, and we all need to keep studying it.

There's still so much more to learn. Interestingly enough, the time frame you're talking about there, and the location you're talking about there,

Spain, 300 years, what has taken place? Well, you've got the century of Muslim expansion, it's ended at the

Battle of Tours, and now, in the generations that follow,

Islam is becoming established in that culture, and in that culture, which borders Christianity, what then is going to start happening?

You're going to have the clash, the apologetic clash, no longer with just the sword. Now you have to start trying to do it with the pen.

And that's when this type of thing develops. When Islamic apologetics is being done with just the sword, you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff.

But when the other guy's sword finally beat your sword, now all of a sudden, you've got to develop something more, and that's when it starts taking place.

That is interesting to me, that would be the time frame which you can trace that to. Well, what would you like to share with our listeners toward the end of the program here?

What are your recollections, as you look back upon the entirety of this encounter?

What do you remember most about it? When you hear the audio, it's not the same as watching it on video.

It wasn't videotaped, was it? It was videotaped, but the copy was bad. They made a professional one that they never gave me a copy of.

Oh, you're kidding. Yeah, not only that, they never paid me. Been there, done that, got the t -shirt. Yeah, so they did that to me.

It was my first debate with a seasoned debater. Tell you what, Sam, we will give you the contract that we use in all of our debates, ever since Barry Lynn onwards.

We have the contract. I got the lawyers, wrote it up, and we'll give it to you so you can make sure that never happens again.

I'd love it. They had it professionally done, but after the debate, no copy was given to me.

My expenses weren't paid. They said, don't worry, we'll pay you. We'll send you a check. And it's five years later,

I'm still waiting for the check. So did they not make it available? Well, what it is is

Shabir Ali has a catalog of all his debates, but he doesn't advertise them. So if you ask for my debate in particular, he'll have a video copy, but it's not advertised.

The ones that are advertised are the ones that they feel that they did a mop -up job. Now that doesn't mean that Shabir assumes that he lost, but the fact is that I was very aggressive.

In fact, if I could do it over again, I would be more relaxed. But I came in the debate angry, and you can see it on the tape, it looked like I was

Tyson about to take the guy's head off. Physically, I was just, I think that's why he got scared, because if you see on tape, he was very, very, you could see visibly shaken on tape.

I don't know if it's because of my demeanor, I don't know what it was, but again, they don't mention that tape too often, unless you press them.

And he has a catalog of all his debates, and someone else that really embarrassed him, and did so very badly, more than I did, was

Robert Morey. Really? He debated him on chronic subjects, and boy, talk about an embarrassment.

Really? Yeah, that's a debate you have to watch, because you'll see what happens to Shabir, and that's another debate although he has in his catalog, he doesn't advertise.

Hmm. Interesting. I just, because you're at the segment where he talks about the Trinity, I just want to preface it about, again, the inconsistency, and because I've followed this guy for years, and on our website, just for your audience to know, they can go back,

I've dismantled almost every one of the arguments in the debate on the website, because I didn't have time to do it there, but I've written full -length responses to the bulk of what he was saying.

On our website, on Answering Islam, there's a specific section devoted to him. Yes. Here, he's going to begin an attack on the

Bible because of the irrationality of the Trinity. Right. Now, what really astounds me about that argument, and I try to catch him on that a little later, but then he tries to, you know, weasel his way out of it, is that in other debates, he argues passionately that the

Bible does not teach the Trinity. Yet in this debate, he's going to attack the Bible because of the irrationality of the

Trinity. Yeah, he did that with one that just truly made me ill, and that is the quote -unquote debate with Anthony Buzzard.

I'd love to hear that one, because again, that exposes inconsistency. Oh, just unbelievable. That's hard to listen to.

I mean, think about it. In debates, he's trying to prove the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity, and then, as a way of undermining the

Bible, he says, look, it's irrational because it does teach the Trinity. So which is it? Well, it seems to me that for Shabir Ali, it's whatever works in the particular context he's in.

And that's what has bothered me so much about, and I understand when you say you're angry, because as I was writing,

I think I picked up a few heartbeats in a couple miles an hour, because as I would hear him just blithely saying, well, and I have this book here by Bruce Metzger which shows you how corrupt the

New Testament was, and I just want to go, that's not his point. What are you talking about? You're taking advantage of people on subjects that just, and especially if it's close to your heart, when you see people misusing information like that, you know, if you can remain nonplussed, nonmoved by something like that, you're not really living, you know, wake up.

So when it was all over, how long did it, afterwards, did people hang around? What were the conversations like afterwards?

I don't want people, because again, my impression of the debate may be different from someone. Someone may hear and think that I didn't do a good of a job, but I can tell you that there, in the debate,

Shabir Ali left alone. No Muslim escorted him, and Muslims were so disappointed in his performance, because what they were trying to do was set me up as like a punching bag, where he would defeat me, because they were trying to promote

Islam in Iowa, and there wasn't a large Muslim presence, so they're trying to convert people. So they invited him with the hopes that he would defeat me, attract people to a lecture they were having two days after the debate, science and the

Quran, and try to discredit the website, because again, the website has really caused Muslim trouble.

So if they could defeat me, and do it, you know, very convincingly, then Shabir would, you know, would be the star of the whole event.

But unfortunately it backfired on him so much so that there was a convert to Islam there, and on the side he pulled me to the side and he said basically he goes, dude, you did an excellent job.

I don't know what happened to the Muslim debater tonight. Now that was their impression. Now whether they're saying that to me there on the spot, that's one thing.

But I can tell you that the Christians were elated. In fact, we were singing hallelujahs at the end. No one could object, because we outnumbered them.

Well, I tell you, like I said, as I listened to it, I said, you know, there's so much here that is so much a part of what we do on a regular basis that I want to go through this, and so we're only 34 minutes into the first of the three

MP3s, so it's going to take a little while to work through all this, but I really appreciate your calling in, and thank you for the work that day, and if there's other stuff, if you'd like to, you know, at the end, you know, take phone calls or something like that, and answer questions from people who might want to talk to you,

I'd be glad to have you on then. I appreciate it. You just let me know, Dr. Lane. Thank you for doing this, because we need more of this kind of material against these

Muslims who are abusing liberal critical sources. They certainly are. Thank you, brother. God bless.

Bye -bye. Thank you, Sam, for calling in today. Thanks for listening. We will continue with our review of the

Shamoon -Shabbir -Ali debate, which took place five years ago, on the next Dividing Line, coming up on Tuesday.

Those of you in Omaha, see you this weekend. God bless. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona 85069 You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.