The Illogic of the “Equality” Argument and Ergun Caner at SBTS in 2003

And welcome to The Dividing Line on, let's see, Thursday, December 26th, 2013, wrapping up the year, it's that day after all of the festivities, so on and so forth, start looking toward the new year, making plans, resolutions, all that kind of stuff, and we just simply continue on with the work of the ministry.

I want to start off today, if I could find, I've got so many different audio notetaker things on my screen right now, there it is,

I want to start off today with something I promised to play for you earlier. It is an illustration in my mind of what's going on in the world today, when it comes to our society and what we consider to be wisdom.

I truly believe that the thought processes of especially the younger generation have been so diminished and degraded by a secular worldview, and hence the only type of education that a secular worldview can give, that people are now impressed by the most shallow forms of thinking.

And of course they get very angry, oh you're just very arrogant, if you say anyone's thought process is shallow, but there are shallow thought processes, and when people engage in them, and hence engage in foolish behavior, that's the stuff of comedy.

But when the left is pushing it, and the secularists are pushing it, then it's the things of wisdom.

A few weeks ago, on that great bastion of progression, and by the way, progressive, what a wonderful word, everyone wants to progress, right?

However, when you drive a car over a cliff, it is progressing, it's just progressing downward, it's the final destination, everything's always progressing toward a final destination.

The question is whether that's an upward destination or a downward destination. And so HuffPo, the

Huffington Post, a wonderful progressive outpost of all things foolish and idiotic at times, had a video of a young man at his bar mitzvah.

And it's actually on YouTube somewhere, I don't have that up, I grabbed the MP3 and that's what I'm going to play for you.

But it was being promoted as this great wisdom and the brilliance of this young man, and he does speak well.

But the problem is, his name's Duncan, and here you have the result of raising a child without a meaningful, transcendent moral and ethical worldview.

He's giving his bar mitzvah talk, and he starts with a section from the

Torah, demonstrates what should have been a corrected misunderstanding of that particular text.

And then, because at his young age, his parents have exposed him to all sorts of same -sex attraction and relationships, and he has developed friendships within this context, he confuses friendship with someone with the necessary approval of their behavior and the things that they want to do.

And in the process, ends up just, again, just completely buying into this marriage equality lie.

And it is a lie. He doesn't believe in marriage equality. He thinks he does, but no one evidently will challenge him on this issue or explain to him where he has gone wrong.

And instead you have adults applauding him. The adults who should take the young man aside, who themselves should recognize the fundamental logical error in what he's saying.

But unfortunately, I don't hear very many people doing that at all. In fact, it does seem that the majority of our fellow citizens have either accepted the argument or, if they haven't accepted the argument, they don't know why they don't accept the argument.

The reason why the phrase marriage equality is utter foolishness could be illustrated by speaking of driving equality.

You see, driving requires specific capacities.

My granddaughter's with us right now. Family's in from Georgia. And I would identify as abjectly foolish anyone who would allow my granddaughter to drive.

All right? Why? She can see probably better than I can. And her arms and her legs work just fine.

Her ears work fine. But we do not allow her to drive. Why not? Because the term driving has particular connotations and skill sets and capacities that are a part of the very word itself.

And the only way you can change that is to redefine driving.

Driving requires a knowledge of law. You may not be able to identify the mathematical formulations, but you need to have the capacity to do some physics.

Did you know that? Sure. It's called depth perception. It's called stopping your car before it runs into the other guy's car.

Recognizing that two moving bodies hitting each other causes physical damage. There are certain capacities necessary for the activity of driving.

And therefore, we don't have an equality in driving movement. Now, here in Arizona, there is sort of something like that going on.

There was a story just this morning. Why not give driver's licenses to people who aren't actually supposed to legally be here?

That kind of thing. So you got that kind of thing, but that's a little different. We're talking about there's something about driving that limits the participants in driving.

So my granddaughter should not be allowed to drive yet. Eventually, she will be allowed to drive.

What that means is that words have meanings and to redefine words is not actually to communicate in a meaningful fashion.

And so when we talk about driving equality, there are other people who can see just fine, but they lack the ability to control their limbs, or they may lack limbs.

We don't allow them to drive. They can't. Or, let's put it another way, there are people who have perfectly functioning limbs, but they can't see.

Their sight no longer exists. Should there be a driving equality for the blind?

Should the blind be allowed to drive for their sake and everybody else's? No. There's a certain level of mental capacity that is required.

People who are mentally incapacitated, we shouldn't let them drive. I think that actually we let way too many of them drive, but they somehow managed to convince the authorities that they could.

The point is, to talk about driving equality is foolishness.

Now, the term equality, oh, we all like that, but it's foolishness when it requires the utter redefinition of the first word, which would be driving.

The same thing when you attach equality to marriage. Marriage has a meaning, and you can determine the meaning of that word by looking at, by turning it into a verb and looking at its direct object.

So, I married Kelly. Now, there is meaning in the word marry, and there is meaning, resultant meaning, in my relationship to her and her relationship to me as a result of that action of being married.

She becomes my wife. I become her husband. Husband and wife have particular meanings, and there is no woman who can ever be a husband and no man who can ever be a wife.

Those words have meaning. To redefine them destroys the fundamental relationship. Same thing with father and mother.

Husband and wife. They are gender specific, and they are gender good. It is right.

It is proper. It is moral. It is good. It is superior to recognize that gender has to do with those words.

It is evil, wrong, depraved, and disgusting to remove gender from those words.

That's a fact. It's a fact that every person I'm listening to knows in their heart, even if they're suppressing that knowledge.

So, when you talk about marriage equality, you're doing the exact same thing that I just did with deriving equality, and that is by redefining it, by changing it to two men, two women, three men, three women, one man, ten women, ten women, one man, one woman, ten men, whatever, which is what we are faced with now.

You have destroyed the institution by changing the meaning of language. Someone should take little

Duncan aside and explain to him that while it sounds real good and it sounds real nice to talk about marriage equality, it is an absurdity because you are redefining the words.

You can use other words, flying equality. We should all have the ability to fly.

Well, I can't. I'm not built to. A bird can. They're built to do that.

I'm not built to do that. There's something about the activity that delimits the participants, and marriage is between a man and a woman.

There are subforms of marriage that have been between one man and multiple women, but that's always brought heartache in the history of man.

What he's going to do is he's going to point out there's polygamy in the Old Testament, and therefore what that means, of course, is that the definition of marriage changes.

What he misses is even in polygamy, it's still heterosexual. You still have a husband.

You still have a wife. It's not the highest form. It's always a step down, but it's still heterosexual.

Those who push this marriage equality are simply having to count on the moral stupidity of the audience to not catch the same kind of redefinition of terms that used car salesmen use to get around the defects in what they're trying to sell you.

And that's what we've got going on. And so here you have a young man, I'm sure he has the highest of intentions.

I hold accountable the adults who should have been able to explain the problem. Let's listen to what he had to say.

Shabbat Shalom. Shabbat Shalom. In my Torah portion, Vayetze, Jacob works for seven years to earn the right to marry

Laban's daughter, his love, Rachel. Before marrying Rachel, Jacob is first tricked into marrying her older sister,

Leah. I find my parasha interesting because it is a window into what life was like back in the days of the

Torah. Back then, they seemed to have a perfect definition of what traditional marriage meant for their time, when as time passes, we have a completely different definition today.

So the question is, how has the definition of traditional marriage changed since the days of the

Torah? Just looking at my Torah portion as a proof text, I think it has changed a lot.

Leah and Rachel had absolutely no say in marrying Jacob. It was like a business deal between Jacob and Laban.

Today, in the United States, marriage is very different. No longer do the fathers arrange marriages, and women can marry whomever they want.

While studying my Torah portion and comparing and contrasting marriage in the past and present, I found it would be irresponsible to exclude the topic of gay marriage.

I am a very, very strong supporter of equal rights and the freedom of men and women to marry whomever they love.

People who disagree with me like to quote the Bible and say that traditional marriage should be between only one man and one woman.

Notice the heterosexual nature of that. But as you see in my Torah portion that I just read, the definition of traditional marriage is nothing like what people think it is today.

Well there you have one problem in not recognizing Jesus as the Son of God who interprets those texts in Matthew chapter 19.

But notice the young man seems to miss the heterosexual element of it all.

Jacob married two sisters who were his first cousins. In the

U .S., the movement toward marriage equality has taken a significant step forward this year.

As of now, 15 states, plus the District of Columbia, have the freedom to marry same -sex couples.

On October 18th, here in Oregon, state agencies decided they must recognize same -sex marriages that are performed in other states, even though, sadly,

Oregon still does not allow same -sex marriage to be performed in our own state. According to OregonMarriageEquality .com,

Oregon currently has a ban between same -sex partners. The domestic partnership law affords some of the same rights as marriage, but still is not equal in name or benefits.

While putting rights up to a vote is never fair, marriage equality will hopefully make it to the

Oregon ballot in 2014. This subject is not only interesting, but it's also very personal.

Now notice the use of the term rights. Rights. This is a rights issue! No it's not, it's a definition issue.

It has nothing to do with rights. Every male homosexual can marry a woman if he wanted to. Every lesbian can marry a man if she wanted to, they just don't want to.

So it has nothing to do with rights at all. And by shifting the topic, shifting the attention, it's amazing the success that people have had.

Which only shows, again, that the constituency in the West is made up today of people who have been taught what to think and not how to think.

That's frightening! That kind of populace is what ends up being under the control of despots.

Because they've not been taught how to think, they cannot critically analyze what is said to them.

When people like Justin Bieber are giving direction to the moral compass of a society, that society is on its last legs.

At least in any moral sense. My family is very close friends with many same -sex couples, especially

Joel and David and Jeff and Wade. They have influenced me to go to Prop 8 rallies when

I lived in California to support the freedom to marry, and they are wonderful people, wonderful parents, and wonderful couples.

I was at Joel and David's first wedding in California a number of years ago, and it was beautiful.

I say first wedding because these two courageous men have gotten married in three different states in which same -sex marriage is legal, and I hope they'll continue until they are married in all 50 states.

They are here to celebrate my bar mitzvah with me, along with their awesome son, Estorado. And where did he come from?

He didn't come from that union! Oh no, he didn't. That union can never produce children.

It can't. It can't produce life. It's not possible.

It's against nature. That child had to come from someplace else. I am proud to be part of a congregation that is 100 % in support of same -sex marriage.

All clergy have spoken in support of the freedom to marry and are very involved in the

Oregon campaign. The congregation formally endorsed the November 2014 ballot initiative and is actively working on the

Oregon campaign to allow all Oregonians the freedom to marry. My -

No they're not. No they're not. All Oregonians the freedom to marry? They're not pushing - are they pushing for the freedom for gay brothers to marry?

Mothers to marry their sons, fathers their daughters? Fathers their sons, mothers their daughters? No they're not.

So they're bigots, right? It has nothing to do with rights. It has nothing to do with freedom.

It has to do with redefinition. It has to do with redefinition. Knocking down the walls. Destroying the institution.

That's what it's all about. The Torah portion taught me that the definition of traditional marriage has changed a lot since the days of the

Torah. So why can't it change just a little bit more so everybody can marry who they love? And now that I'm a

Bar Mitzvah, I will not only continue to support, but encourage other people to support equal marriage rights.

Shabbat Shalom. Shabbat Shalom. So that's what was posted on the

Huffington Post website. With glowing, oh isn't this awesome, the wisdom of the children, you know

I start wanting to sing something from John Denver, you know, the wisdom of the children, lead us in that yeah blah blah blah.

Again Duncan, Duncan has been, his parents have decided to put him in a context where that's all he knows.

That's all he knows. And so he thinks that's a good thing. And this is why, you know,

I've thought of the description that Paul provides of people in the last days deceiving and being deceived.

So there are people who are deceiving others, but the vast majority of them are deceived themselves.

Deception begets further deception. If you don't love the truth, you'll be caused to love a lie. And that's what we see all around us.

That's what we see all around us. In another item here,

I saw an article on December 19th and it was titled,

What You Believe About Homosexuality Doesn't Matter, by Tyler, intheparlor .wordpress

.com. And here's what he says,

Today there are two news stories that have been circulating all over my Facebook and Twitter news feeds. One you are probably aware of, the other maybe not.

The two, though are closely related. The first news story is the indefinite suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson due to the comments he made during an interview with GQ magazine.

The second news story is about the defrocking of Pennsylvania UMC pastor Frank Schaefer after he performed the marriage for his gay son and subsequent refusal to submit a church law regarding his action.

The link between these two stories is clear. The church's views, or in this case of Duck Dynasty, a certain understanding of the

Christian faith's views regarding homosexuality. The reaction to both these stories has been emphatic, to say the least.

The debate over the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality has once again been fired up. The appeals to the biblical passages have been made.

The academic rebuttals, the interpretation of those passages has no doubt been referenced. Well, notice immediately you can tell where this person is coming from.

There is an academic rebuttal to the interpretation of those passages. We've all seen what happens when the revisionists actually try to come into the debate arena.

This is not a statement of arrogance. This is a statement of fact. I've never lost a debate against homosexuality or anyone promoting homosexuality.

I don't think there's anybody who would say that I have. I cannot imagine anyone saying that John Shelby Spong won our debate on homosexuality.

And Barry Lynn's response of threatening to sue us to suppress the tapes of our debate with him.

Pretty clear indication of what he thought happened in that debate on homosexuality too. And I debated a homosexual in Salt Lake City.

Justin Lee didn't even want to use the term debate of our encounter just earlier this year.

We haven't gotten into 2014 yet. So I've not lost a debate on this subject. Nor should

I lose a debate on this subject in any way, shape, or form. As long as you know the facts.

As long as you know the issues. There shouldn't be an issue at all. So the revisionists can try.

But the revisions don't work when placed in the context of someone who can demonstrate the reality.

The calls for freedom and tolerance from both sides have been shouted or at least typed out with great gusto. The theological debate, and I'm using that term very generously here, has been raging all day long and no doubt will continue to rage in the weeks to come.

But I refuse to engage in it the way I see it. The time for that debate has long since passed. Now this man is a youth pastor.

But he is a youth pastor in the United Methodist Church. Now, I know there are still believers in UMC, but you've got to admit, folks, you are in the small minority.

I mean, let's face it, on an institutional level, your denomination hit the capitulation button a long time ago when it came to biblical authority.

Look at Claremont Graduate School. Just look at your leadership. And, I'm sorry,

Episcopalians, United Methodist Church, liberal Presbyterians, you're all in the same very rapidly shrinking boat.

And it's a rapidly sinking boat, too. So he says, but I refuse to engage in it the way

I see it. The time for that debate has long since passed. The stakes are too high now. Now listen to this. The stakes are too high for what?

Theological debate. Hmm. The current research suggests that teenagers that are gay are about three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.

That puts the percentage of gay teens attempting suicide at about 30 -some percent. One out of three teens who are gay or bisexual try to kill themselves, and a lot of times they succeed.

In fact, Reverend Schaffer's son contemplated suicide on a number of occasions in his teens. Now, if we just stopped right there, rationally, logically, in a world where common sense still existed in the public sphere, what would that mean?

That would mean that homosexuality is a bad thing. That it's bad for people.

It brings death. It's not natural. It would be immediately identified as the problem.

But that's not how it's identified as the problem here. It's not identified as the problem here.

The problem is everybody else! Where did common sense go?

What's going on here? I mean, it's like, okay. Teenagers who abuse crack cocaine frequently experience death in many different bad ways.

Drugs destroy the body. Right?

And so what do we blame? The drugs? No, we should blame our condemnation of drugs!

If we didn't blame drugs, then they'd be good for you! What? So if you don't condemn homosexuality, if you just say it's great and wonderful, then everybody will be fine.

What? The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter.

I'm going back to reading the thing here. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin.

Let me say that again. It does not matter if you think homosexuality is a sin or if you think it is simply another expression of human love.

It doesn't matter! Bold and italics. Which ends the argument right there.

Once you use bold and italics. If it was underlined in blue and if it blinked. Remember blink? The HTML tag blink?

We had blink. We had blink back in... What was that? 1994? 96?

Okay, stop. We don't want to embarrass ourselves.

Why doesn't it matter? Because people are dying. Kids are literally killing themselves because they're so tired of being rejected and dehumanized that they feel their only option left is to end their life.

Now look, this grabs people by the heart. But think about it.

How many pedophiles kill themselves? Ooh, that's huge. That's huge. So let's say pedophilia is just an expression of love.

See the problem? Oh, you're saying all homosexuals are pedophiles! See, it's amazing the incapacity of the leftist mind to stay on one line for very long.

There is an argument here. If you don't have an objective moral standard that defines human behavior in a meaningful fashion you're going to have real problems discussing these things.

He says, as a youth pastor this makes me physically ill and as a human it should make you feel the same way so I'm through with the debate.

Who cares what God says? Who cares about theology? This is why the

UMC will die. Will die. Because it's filled with unbelievers.

This man has no concept of having God's revelation as a foundation that then determines the rest of his life.

He's in the center, God's out here, theology's out here and he's decided these things can just go away. This is secularism with a religious layer on it.

When faced with the choice between being theologically correct as if this is even possible there you go there's the

UMC yea has God said and being morally responsible as if you could define that without the first part

I'll go with morally responsible every time Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian during World War II he firmly held the theological position of nonviolence he believed that complete pacifism was theologically correct and yet in the midst of the war he conspired to assassinate

Adolf Hitler to kill a fellow man why? Because in light of what he saw happening to the Jews around him by the Nazis he felt it would be morally irresponsible not to between the assassination of Hitler and nonviolence he felt the greatest sin would be nonviolence we are past the time for debate no connection here missed it we no longer have the luxury to consider the original meaning of Paul's letter to the

Corinthian church that's what he said we are past time for debate we no longer have the luxury to consider the original meaning of Paul's letter to the

Corinthian church well the original meaning is not really difficult to determine we are now faced with the reality that there are lives at stake

God's glory eternity, salvation and the very human life itself no no no no no we just need to make sure that kids don't commit suicide so whatever you believe about homosexuality keep it to yourself instead try telling a gay kid that you love him you don't want him to die try inviting her into your church into your home, into your life anything other than that simply doesn't matter look everyone can understand what the guy is saying but he is speaking as a non -christian and you need to know how to respond to it because you see when you bring a person who is addicted to drugs that will kill them into a situation where you will not in any way shape or form bring morality to bear, reality to bear the fact that this will kill you to bear you know you are just accepted you are just loved love does more than accept and it's not life you are inviting them to it's eternal death this is a person creating the image of God the reason they are contemplating suicide is that they are themselves tearing at that image of God that's the whole point here is unbelieving

Christianity it's what it is, it's unbelieving Christianity which means it's not Christianity at all it's not

Christianity at all I have another one we'll look at later on from Charisma News on that one but we've gone half an hour on that and I needed to address some other issues the shifting gears the smoke that you smell is coming from the clutch um looking briefly at the

Twitter feed I just ignore what's there anyways we move on last week it was made known to me let me see if I can find it here where did it go, there it is in 2004 in I believe issue 81 of the

Southern Baptist Theological Journal an article appears titled

The Doctrine of Jihad in the Islamic Hadith authors Emir F. Kanner and Ergin M.

Kanner and I was surprised to see this had not seen it before last week sometime,

I think it was sometime Thursday it's an unbalanced article it's a one -sided article but the biggest concern that immediately caught my eye as I looked through it footnote number 1 is a footnote to a lengthy portion let me see how many on February 28, 1998 5

Islamic Caliphates I'm not even sure why they're called Caliphates signed a document of a declaration of war against the

United States of America, a fatwa representing 5 radical factions these men unite in calling the

Muslim world to task against the perceived enemy of Islam the full text reads as follows I see 1 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7 8, 9 10 11, 12 13, 14 15, 16 17 paragraphs 17 paragraphs with a single footnote and that single footnote reads published in Arabic on February 23, 1998 in Al -Quds

Al -Arabi then we have this sentence translation and italics by the authors now

I suppose that phrase that sentence translation and italics by the authors could be taken ambiguously but when it is found in a footnote in a theological journal the authors, plural, are the authors of the article that's the normative utilization of language now we all know that Ergen Kanner hides behind non -normative utilization of language or at least he and his sycophants, sycophant defenders but the normative utilization of that language translation and italics by the authors means that Ergen and Emir Kanner were claiming to have translated this from Arabic into English the reason that's rather interesting of course is we all know that in the excuse sheet published by Norman Geisler which has undergone an interesting weight reduction program since it was originally published it's gotten smaller and smaller over time for some strange reason but the original can still be found by Web Archive web .archive

.org and in fact even found in a PDF on the

Veritas Seminary website you will be able to bring up this

PDF, I would save it while you can and save the URL because we know that Ergen Kanner has other sycophants listening to this program watching the

Twitter feeds who are very busily seeking to Kannerize everything they can but here even at the

Veritas Seminary which we very lovingly call Pravda Theological Seminary because of its involvement in the great evangelical cover -up you have the original what looks like the original form of the excuse sheet which as we pointed out when it was originally published at normangeisler .com

that it was in fact it's yeah normangeisler .com that we looked in the subdirectory did not take any hacking to do that it was publicly available and those of us who back in the early part of this century did use that dinosaur program called

Microsoft Front Page knows that you can take a

Word document and ask Front Page to turn it into HTML the result from an

HTML perspective was what term should I use? Ugly.

Very, very ugly. The program was called Heavy. Heavy. Heavy with too much code.

Heavy. Very heavy. It's heavy man. Very heavy. It was bad. It was ugly.

It was bad. But the point is whoever converted it didn't bother deleting the

Word document out of the subdirectory. And so the Word document was fully downloadable. We downloaded it.

You open it up and in the properties in the Word document it says that it was produced on a machine licensed to Truett McConnell College which of course is where Ymir Kaner is president.

And so there you go. The connection was made. We've posted the screenshots. It's all up there. This isn't

Norman Geisler's writing. This is Ymir Kaner's writing. Providing some of the most laughable, absurd makes

Gail Riplinger look bright style material we've ever encountered. It's that bad. It is that bad.

That's why we continue to go, what is that Hadith 2425 again? Because it's indefensible.

Absolutely indefensible. Norman Geisler will never defend it. Ergin Kaner, Ymir Kaner, nobody will ever defend it.

I could open up the phone lines right now and say, send your best and it'll be crickets.

It's indefensible. It's absurd. I have enough sound files just within easy click to shred it.

It's that bad. But it's still out there. The pared down version is still on Norman Geisler's website and on Veritas.

Anyways, it is in that that we read the following words. The charge that he can speak

Arabic when he can't. He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non -Arabic

Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergin learned enough

Arabic, as most Muslims do, to read the Quran and speak it in prayer. Now, again, even that is absurd on a level that is difficult.

It's just chuckles. First of all, he wasn't raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother. When you ask, where was

I raised? Well, I was born in Minneapolis but I was only there for five and a half years or so.

I spent six years in Pennsylvania and the rest of the time in Arizona. So, if you're only there until age three, you weren't raised in Sweden.

You were born in Sweden and you had a Swedish mother which, of course, then gives a lie to his I'm 100 %

Turkish. No, you're not. Not if you have a Swedish mother. That means you're 50 % Turkish. Maybe he's just got a math issue.

I don't know. But it says, Ergin learned enough Arabic, as most Muslims do, to read the

Quran. Most Muslims cannot read the Quran in Arabic. Who are these people? Have they ever met a

Muslim and speak it in prayer? Well, yeah. The prayers are in Arabic but the vast majority of Muslims, the world's

Muslims, cannot read the Quran in Arabic. It's just baloney. But here is an admission.

He does not speak Arabic, even though he pretended to, over and over and over again, as we demonstrated in the video.

So, if this is the case, then why is there a theological journal article still online, available at sbs .edu?

Go to the journal. Go to the online resources. Go to the journal. Search for Kanner. It'll come up. It's from 2003.

Why? Why is this? This footnote's on page 41 of SBJT underline 081 underline kanner .pdf

Footnote number one. Translation italics by the authors. Now, we know that Turretinfan, Justin Channel, right now, just put up another link.

Just put up another link. Clicking. Aha! Here is one from the

ETS, Evangelical Theological Society meeting, annual national meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Presented by Emir and Ergen. And, yep.

Look at that. Now, mine only goes page... Oh, that's page one. I wonder where page two goes.

Did he... Would two be it? Yep, there it is.

And, footnote. Translation italics by the authors. Okay. Same claim being made.

And that's in 2001. Yep. They started this early. They started this early. When did

Emir learn to translate Arabic? Because we know that Ergen can't do it. And Emir's PhD is in the

Anabaptists. So, is he the one that can translate Arabic? When did he learn to do it?

He wasn't... His exposure to his father's

Islam is even less than Ergen's. He's the youngest. He was born in the United States. I've never heard him even claim to speak

Arabic. So, who... Who translated this? And why is it some people in Channel, some really smart people in Channel, started looking around, and they found this same document in English, and it's eerily the same as what's found in these papers.

In fact, let's put it this way. It's a whole lot closer to being plagiarism than anything

Mark Driscoll did. Hmm. Hmm. Interesting.

Interesting. Well, the discovery of this, and I'm looking at the footnotes here.

I don't see any reference in the Baptist Theological Journal article that says that this article appeared or was presented at ETS and appeared earlier.

I wonder why not. Hmm. But then, footnote number seven of the article says, see

Hadith number 42, Volume 4. This verse is also repeated in 5 .59

.602. Now again, that is not a meaningful citation of the

Hadith collections. If you don't identify the collection, you can't find the reference.

Anybody who's actually read the Hadith knows this. Anyone who's actually debated

Muslims knows this. Ergen and Ymir Kanner didn't know this.

They've got to know it by now. But they didn't know this up until about 2010.

Well, evidently, the discovery of the SBTS Journal article caused somebody to look around and go, hey,

I wonder if Ergen Kanner ever spoke at Southern Seminary. And lo and behold, he did.

He did at the Carl F. H. Henry get -together in 2003 with Dr.

Moore and Dr. Moeller. The third speaker was Ergen Kanner. I will try to remember to post the

URLs to the original

MP3s. They are still available at sbts .edu. And I hope and pray they remain available at sbts .edu.

So that you can listen. But, of course, we've downloaded them. The web doesn't forget.

The web doesn't forget. And I listened to them last week.

And there were a couple places where I just about fell off my bike. One of them

I think I already played for you last time. I'm going to play it early here and then we'll get back to it.

Here you have from 2003. Here's to me one of the most important elements of the discovery of these audios.

Now, by the way, this would have been really interesting because Peter Kreeft was supposed to be there as well.

And they were going to be critiquing his evangelical jihad. But he never made it.

And they're still not exactly sure why. It was some sort of alleged... The assertion was a family emergency but no one ever said what it was.

So, Kreeft wasn't there. Thankfully, Dr. Moeller's presentation was as with most things that Dr.

Moeller does smack dab on target. In the midst of this,

I heard something that made me go, huh? And that is at some point in here,

I didn't mark it, but at some point in here and I've been able to verify this since then. Ergin Kanter at this time was a trustee of Southern Seminary.

He was elected at that point. He was elected to that position by the Southern Baptist Convention in the state of Colorado, I believe, where he was at that time a pastor.

Or had been a pastor. He was a trustee. That's probably how he got the gig at Southern in the first place.

Now remember, in 2003, I don't even think the Muslims... I do not know the first time where Muslims started putting up material going, um, there's something fishy about this, dude.

I don't remember when Mohammed Khan started. I'm gonna guess around 2008.

I'd say that's a fairly... I think I'm being pretty fair there. I think around 2008. This is five years earlier than that.

There was no reason for Dr. Moeller, Dr. Moore, Dr. anybody to question what this man has to say.

The willingness of Ergin Kanter... Now again, all you gotta do, take the

Geisser excuse sheet, written by Ymir Kanter, take the Bruton Parker press release, just use them as your standard, and Ergin Kanter stood in front of Al Moeller and the staff and the faculty and the students of Southern Seminary and boldly lied his face off with a smile.

With a smile. The man is incorrigible.

But here's what made it so significant to me. What got me, what turned me on to this?

What got me aware of where Ergin Kanter was coming from? Of the fact there was a problem. His claims about Shabir Ali, remember?

Mohammed Khan sent me, he posted a video, well it wasn't even a video, it was just one of those YouTube things where you have audio, but you know what

I mean. 2010, I think it was February, I'm going over to London, gonna do debates over there with Muslims, real

Muslims, real debates. We can prove it because you can go watch them on YouTube today. Unlike Ergin Kanter, where you can't do any of that.

And there you had twice in 2007, Ergin Kanter claiming to have debated

Shabir Ali. Now, the one thing that Ergin Kanter has apologized for in all of this, now you know we've seen his tweets, utterly vindicated, pure as the driven snow,

I deny everything, it's everyone accused of me, but the one thing that he apologized for was misnaming a particular

Islamic scholar. He didn't even have the guts to say, you know what, I claimed to have debated

Shabir Ali and I was wrong. I was wrong. And even then, his apology was up for what, 10 days, 2 weeks?

And then he pulled it. Then he pulled it. And yet, people today still go, well he did say, oh and that was the other thing.

Would you remind me to do this? On the Pastor's Perspective program last week, Calvary Chapel, Brian Brodersen took a call about Ergin Kanter and said he's repented.

He's repented. I was going to play it and I have it on my other computer and I just forgot. I'm sorry.

But he claims that Ergin Kanter has repented. The only thing Ergin Kanter quote unquote repented of was claiming to have debated

Shabir Ali. That's the only thing. Brodersen is wrong.

We'll play the whole call. I have it. You know what?

Did I save it to Dropbox? If I was smart, I saved it to Dropbox.

Let me look real quick. This is a musical interlude. Kanter, Cycling, Kanter.

Ah, I didn't. I didn't. Why not? Because you're dumb. It's on my desktop at home, but I will grab it and we will listen to it because someone called in.

They were given bad information. Now again, Brian Brodersen just may think that's the case, but he's wrong.

Here's the point. Two times in 2007, he claims to have debated Shabir Ali. He's never met Shabir Ali. He's never debated

Shabir Ali. Blah, blah, blah. We all know that. I was on Jomax Road.

I was eastbound on Jomax Road when I heard this. It's stuck in the brain.

That part won't go away. I may forget who I am, but I will not forget where I was when I heard this. Hello. Click.

Go. When Shabir Ali, when he and I do a debate, he will say, well, you will speak very kindly about Muhammad. And I said, as long as you do so about Jesus, you attack

Jesus, I'm going after Muhammad. And so he said, that's what I did. As soon as he did. Now, yeah, you can.

You can hear him say it. That's Dr. Moore. See, Dr. Moore, at the beginning of this, at the beginning of the

Q &A section, here, listen to what Dr. Moore says here at the beginning of the Q &A section. Several questions that I did not anticipate being raised today that have.

The first is President Moeller whispering to me, who is Stone Cold Steve Austin? The second of which.

So see, Cantor mentioned Steve Austin. Stone Cold Steve Austin. The people in the audience laughed, and Moeller said, who's that?

And so what you have here is Cantor claims to debate Shabir Ali.

Here it is again. Big, kind, you know, language. Shabir Ali, when he and I do debate, he will say, well, you will speak very kindly about Muhammad.

And I said, as long as you do so about Jesus, you attack Jesus, I'm going after Muhammad. And so he said, that's what

I did. As soon as he did. So that's

Dr. Moore leaning over to Dr. Moeller saying, there. And you know what he's doing. You've seen

Cantor. He's doing his Stone Cold Steve Austin thing. And he had even earlier,

I marked it up here. Yeah, here. Right here. A fat

Stone Cold Steve Austin. I don't look religious. The fact that you know that, you just bothered your president a lot.

I love you so much. See, there's where it came in. So we all know he has a

WWF fantasy. He thinks he's a WWF guy. That he's one of these wrestlers.

We've been told this by everybody who knows him. His basement, when he was at Liberty, was filled with full -size, life -size posters of WWF people.

And he's just taken with this strange... We're not talking UFC stuff here.

We're talking the goofy, fake stuff. That's where he lives.

So he's striking the Stone Cold Steve Austin pose. As if, well,

I told Shabir Ali, he's never met Shabir Ali! And this was four years earlier than the earliest example we had.

If we had a... If we had a exhaustive accounting of everything that Erick McCann or said, during that time period, all the radio interviews, how many times would we find him misstating things?

Because remember, even in his apology, he lied. He said,

I misspoke. Excuse me! This is now four years earlier. You gonna tell me that twice in 2007 and four years earlier you were just misspeaking the same name and quoting him?

Now by the way, I know Shabir Ali pretty well. He would never have said to Erick McCann or, you need to speak respectively of Muhammad.

He'd never say that. He'd never say that. And he never did.

Because they've never met. The man's lying through his teeth. And he's lying through his teeth on stage at Southern Seminary.

And he just continued it and continued it. Why? Because he got away with it. There was nobody in that room who knew

Shabir Ali. I didn't know who Shabir Ali was in 2003. I had no idea.

If I had been sitting there, I would have been absolutely, wow, this guy's great. This is awesome. This guy's good.

Now the reality is, now, being where I am, I listen to his answers and I go, this guy is clueless.

I mean, there were things that he was saying in answer to good questions that Dr. Moore asked him that are literally incoherent.

They're incoherent. Here, listen to this. Listen to this. And so,

I mean, does that make sense? It absolutely does. I had the same conflict. I was at Frankfurt at the book festival with the

International Mission Board guys there. And they had said, but the only term we can use is Allah. And I made the point that what you do not have is a personal relationship.

Refer to Allah's father, there's no problem. If you want to use Allah, I would always say

Isa bin Allah, Jesus, son of God. We're in such a rush to get my people saved that we're neglecting that before one is saved, they must recognize their lostness.

In other words, that Allah is not just a good path, but off the wrong exit, but that Allah was idolatry.

Just for me, from my perspective, most of us who are MBBs, Muslim background believers, we do not use

Allah as our terminology, even in Arabic. We may use the Persian term, Qudu. But if I speak of Allah, I say

Isa bin Allah. That is gibberish. That is gibberish.

The standard Arabic translations of the Bible use Allah. He claimed there again to be able to speak

Arabic. It's a lie. It's gibberish. What wonderful opportunity to have actually educated those students, given them something they could use, totally wasted, because this guy has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore and wants to be worshipped by people, and the result is gibberish.

Makes no sense. None of that made a bit of sense. He even used Isa. Why use Isa? They don't use

Isa! That's a mispronunciation of Jesus' name.

Well, so there you go. Proof positive that Eric Kanner was lying about debating

Shabir Ali at least four years earlier than our earliest documentation before, and I haven't even started playing it, because we've got, well here, just the first few seconds here, because we're about out of time.

Hold on just one second. But I was a Muslim for 20 years. 20 years? Really? My father was an ulema.

Ulema is plural? It's an alim? A scholar.

A hadithic scholar, more specifically. A hadithic scholar. He designed mosques.

He didn't have any degrees in hadith. And by the way, if this guy could speak Arabic, he would know what the term for a scholar of hadith is.

It's muhadith. Muhadith. That's a scholar of hadith. Not a hadithic scholar.

I mean, it's just... Oh, my. My, my, my, my, my.

So we're going to listen to it. Download and save to hard drives, folks, because you know what

Kannerization does. We hope that's not going to happen here. But, we've got it.

And the net never forgets. And so, there you go. But we will work through it.

Because there's some... Again, he claims to have done a debate at the

University of North Texas. There was an imam. He was debating who he called abi, which means father.

Why in the world? What? Just... It is truly amazing.

But he miscites surah 5, verse 116. He depends on Yusuf Ali. He does the majority, you know, we're always in the minority stuff.

Yeah, yeah, right here. But it was my saturation. It was my life. Everywhere I lived, before I came to America, we were the majority.

I come to America, and I have to explain to you, from the Islamic mindset, it is tough moving to your culture.

Yeah, there you go. And now we all know, of course, that he came here before. He was three. And, you know, again, just more evidence.

You, who continue to defend Ergin Kanner, how much will it take?

Folks at Bruton -Parker, think, people! Think! How much evidence do you require?

It is amazing. Absolutely. Positively amazing. So, we will continue on with that, as well as watching the developments in all sorts of other areas.

We will be back before the end of the year, probably do a sort of year -in -review type thing, if we possibly can.

It has been an amazing year. Certainly the most amazing year in my ministry. And we'll talk about that as well.