More With Zakir Hussain

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 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. And good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon, a currently beautiful Thursday afternoon here in Phoenix.

The weatherman says that it's going to get really ugly and windy and all that stuff.

And I look outside and I go, let's put it this way, if I get up tomorrow morning and the sun's shining and the birds are chirping,

I'm going to be really, really angry. I am. Because I was planning on going,

I'm going to be in Tucson this weekend, I'm going to be at Faith Community Church Saturday night and twice on a Sunday morning. And I'm going to be speaking there, real, real great folks.

I was down there. When was I down there? Oh, I was down there last November, right after the very,

I spoke the night of El Toro to Tucson when I finally broke through, broke the six hour thing in El Toro to Tucson.

Did I tell you, you know what my intention is this year? I'm going to ride my bent in El Toro to Tucson. I'm going to ride a recumbent, but in El Toro to Tucson, yeah.

I'm actually going to ride it in El Toro to Mesa next month. Yeah, that's going to be, that's,

I'm giving myself a real challenge there. Just as long as you don't come back bent. Well, I can tell you something,

I wouldn't want to be, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a bent accident because the first thing that hits you from my bike are the gears, the big teeth.

That's the first, that's the first thing that hits the wind are the teeth of my bike. And I wouldn't want to be on a regular bike.

It's a nice soft rubber wheel on a recumbent. It's a bunch of steel.

So that would be, that would be really bad. Anyways. What was I saying? Oh yeah. I was supposed to go to Tucson.

And what I plan on doing is I was going to go down early tomorrow morning and I was going to like climb

Mount Lemmon. And then I was going to do that again on, on Saturday. But the last place in the world

I want to be when it's raining is Mount Lemmon. Coming down Mount Lemmon where you're going swish, swish, swish on a wet road.

Yeah. Not fun. No, no, no, no, no. I hate riding in the rain anyways. So I'm, I'm just hoping

Saturday morning maybe there'll be some clearing or something. I don't know. It's Arizona. So it, it dries out fast.

So, but, but if it's not raining tomorrow morning, I'm going to be very, very unhappy.

That's, that's just all there is to that. Now everybody's asking what a recumbent looks like. I need,

I need to post, I actually have one picture of me on my recumbent, but I'm going to, I'm going to wait until I'm a little,

I actually, I got her up to 21 miles per hour yesterday chasing my wife down the, down the, down 51st

Avenue because it was rush hour. So we were time traveling. We were just, let's get through this as quick as we can, get back into the neighborhood streets.

But we, and I got right around 21 miles per hour on the flats. So I'm starting to feel a little more comfortable with it, but it's not, not,

I've only written it four times. So give me, give me 73 ,000 miles on it and I'm sure it'll be second nature, which is how far

I've ridden on a regular bike. Anyhow, what in the world am I talking about? I'm going to be down there and I'm talking about the witness of God and creation as the basis of our apologetics.

And so we will be down there and visiting with Tucson mom and the family. Tucson child is excited because every time

I come to Tucson, we go to Olive Garden and that's, I guess the poor kid, it's the only time he ever gets

Olive Garden. I'm not really sure why that is. But Tucson mom has, has helped me get up Mount Lemon before.

And I always figure if I'm coming down Mount Lemon and I crash or something the first person that's getting a call is

Tucson mom. So I hope you've got like some first aid stuff in your, in your car, stuff like that in case

I go down, but I'm really hoping that doesn't happen. So anyway, that's what we're doing this weekend and looking forward to also, um, the 24th of March, which is not very far away actually, as I'm looking at the calendar here, um, coming up fairly quickly, uh, two weeks into Sunday.

I will be, I have, I'm going to go ahead and announce this now since it's not a secret.

Uh, but for about 20 years or so now I have known

Doug McMasters. I first met Doug McMasters. He was working for Phil Johnson at Grace To You.

And in 1996 I went over and I spoke in Phil's Sunday school class and I met the guys from Grace To You and that's when

I first met, uh, Doug McMasters. And I think anyways that I was instrumental in getting him into riding, into cycling.

I know that once he and I rode 106 miles together, uh, whenever you do a century with somebody just bonds you together.

That's just all there is to it. Um, and a couple of times recently over the past couple of years,

I have spoken at Trinity Road, uh, Baptist church in, um, uh,

Wandsworth, London, where he was a pastor. Well, he's moved on from there and, um, he has been called as the new pastor of the

New Hyde Park Baptist church, which is in New Hyde Park, New York on New Hyde Park Road. Uh, I was just doing my theology matters thing, uh, and I was announcing this and it's repeating

New Hyde Park Baptist church three times in a row is rather challenging, but New Hyde Park.

Anyways, so I will be doing the Sunday school, Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service on March 24th at New Hyde Park Baptist church, and that will be

Doug's installation service. And so I will be preaching for his installation service. And I am very, very honored to do that.

And by the way, for those of you who just want some history history here, and since I seem to be wandering about anyways, uh, which

I do every once in a while, and most people think I do all the time, um, that is the church.

The former pastor there was the one that I had the conversation with in 2004 that got me in trouble with the

Mark Seifried stuff. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. That was the pastor of that church. He asked me to come early. I was speaking that night, asked me to come early.

We sat in his office and he said, what do you think of this book? What do you think of what he's saying? And I came home and started writing the blog articles, responding to the statements in the book, especially about the concept of imputation.

And that's what started the whole thing. And so it was New Hyde Park and New Hyde Park Baptist Church. Also, uh,

I've told the story a number of times about what, two years, two and a half years, three years ago, somewhere around there, um, is where I had done a debate and the

Akhmadi Muslims showed up and they said, are you speaking any place else?

I said, well, I'm speaking on the reliability of the text of New Testament, New Hyde Park Baptist Church on Wednesday night. Well, that's the night we meet. We'll call ours off and come meet with you.

And so they all showed up at, there is about 60 % Christians, 40 % Muslims. And that's where I got to meet with all them and talk with them and so on and so forth.

So I've obviously had a long history, uh, with the New Hyde Park Baptist Church and that's where I'll be on the 24th.

So I gather it's okay for me to post that to Facebook now. Yeah, I guess I didn't, I was hoping it was going to be,

I was sort of hoping it was going to be like a big secret and, and you know, uh, you know, we were, the service to be started and, and who's going to be preaching and I come in and, but it didn't work that way.

No big surprise there. No big surprise. Nope. Nope. Nope. So, so that's, uh, that's, that's what we're doing.

So you can put it on Facebook since you like putting things on Facebook. That's just a thing that you, you like doing.

So well, now that we're talking about it, now we're talking about, um, did you put on Facebook, uh, the, the excitement that is sweeping the nation over Peter Lumpkin's new book?

No, you would have, because that propagates when you post it to the blog that propagates to Facebook. So that is, you know, there, you think

I'd put something like that on the blog as exciting as that is. Well, you see last dividing line, you talked about that and you mentioned that in the blog and posted that.

So that propagated to Facebook and then there's the event section, which I really want to talk about. Propagated to Facebook.

Yes. I mean, let's think about the meaning of that actual term and how did that ever get used to it?

This doesn't make any sense to me. It goes way back. But then there's the event section and you know,

I'm trying to keep the event section up to date there on Facebook until we get a real calendar on our website.

That's kind of what I'm trying to use there at the Alpha and Omega page on Facebook. And so, and the neat thing is that if you join the event on Facebook and anything changes, like, you know, all the streets freeze over and you know, somebody will die if they try to drive to the event, stuff like that, you cancel it.

I can take, you know, go in there and change it, cancel it and it'll notify you in your email and on Facebook.

If you're at home, if you're at Lowe's, you can't do that. Well, actually, if you have Facebook on your phone like I do. Yeah, but you said you can do it at home.

Well, that was a little, yeah, I was indisposed at that particular time, but you could have done it.

No, that would require me to actually log into Facebook. I've almost developed a religious aversion to that.

So anyhow, how did I get a Peter Lumpkins from there?

I don't know. I'm just looking, you know, I still, I need to refresh this page because I still haven't figured out how you can purchase this thing.

Oh, I did. Someone did tell me. I was wondering who Free Church Press was. And Free Church Press is

Peter Lumpkins. So it's a vanity, vanity publication, which is not overly shocking.

I'm still looking here. I haven't seen any links as to where you can purchase this thing because I'm sure that people are gonna be calling in every day.

And, you know, you are not a Calvinist like MacArthur, Piper or Sproul.

They would never tell a man to seek God in light of Rimmons 311. You know,

I almost brought it up. I should have. Actually, I do have the link. Maybe I will during the break.

We'll take it to half hours like that. But I started getting into a small discussion with someone on Twitter.

Maybe it's on here. Yeah. A guy who goes by the name of Truman Smith. Yeah, there is.

In fact, there is. And he's the one who contacted me. And he claims to be a former.

He dropped me a note that said, free essay on how science destroys Christian theology.

Well, I'm glad it's free. That would be that's very good that it's free. It would be bad if it actually cost money.

But why is it? Oh, here it is. It's now available.

Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology version 1 .0. I love that. Because it might destroy it better in the future.

I don't know. That'd be version 1 .5. And will version 2 .0 require an upgrade fee?

That is the real question. Do you think you're gonna have to work out some bugs? I think he does need to work out some bugs.

For example, you know, I was just scanning down and going, uh -huh. Yeah, I was looking for anything new.

I was looking for anything that showed any meaningful insight. And I didn't find anything.

But you have. Well, just I'll just just read you a section here, just to give an idea.

The gospel stories contain well -known myth and are not to be trusted. So in other words, if there's anything supernatural about it, that's just not it.

As does Acts, the first so -called historical account of the early church. As an aside, it should be recognized the four gospels are anonymously written.

I just I don't know. Of course, they're not. Luke is not anonymously written.

We know the Luke, the Luke and Corpus and so on and so forth. But it just my

Muslim friends, you know, they they get me to admit.

For example, I don't know if you saw it, but in the I'm just really rambling today, but it's fun. In the

Trinity debate. At Trinity College, Dublin, one of the

Muslims. Said, why don't you think Paul was contradicting Jesus? And he quotes from Hebrews where it says, leaving aside the basic teachings.

And Jesus said, don't do that. And Paul said to do that. I said, well, first of all, you miss your miss. Well, actually, I said secondly,

I told him he's misinterpreting the Hebrews text because he's not saying you're going to abandon that. What he's saying is move on from that.

That's the foundation. You move on from there. And since they weren't mature, they couldn't do that. But then

I pointed out, why do you think Paul wrote Hebrews? Well, it says right here in his head is

King James. So it says right there. And it's like, well, we don't we don't know who wrote Hebrew. They're like, and then so so Adnan gets a he even admitted they don't know who because it's just amazing how many

Muslims. Anachronistically, take a concept that developed even after the days of Muhammad called the

Isna chain, the idea that this person narrated this person, narrated this person, and that actually developed later, you can tell in the earliest

Tafsir literature, it really hasn't been fully established yet. It's a later development, but they'll take that from six, 700 years later and read it back and go, well, you don't know who wrote that stuff because you don't have an

Isna chain. As if anybody back then was even thinking about such as if it was the standard, it wasn't the standard.

And yet they will just just read it. And here's atheists going, oh, as an aside, she recognized four gospels are anonymously written.

Imagine if a pastor said, turn to anonymous gospel number one, rather than turn to the gospel of Matthew. Obviously, that would have a greatly diminished impact on the congregation.

But Christians claim to strive to be honest, represent the truth fairly, is a form of subtle lying to misrepresent the gospels as if scholars knew who wrote them when no one really does.

So despite the fact that the earliest traditions connect these names and the earliest writers commenting in these connect these names, these gospels, well, since you didn't have a picture and you don't have a notarized statement filed with the proper authorities in Jerusalem or wherever it might have been at the time in the

Roman Empire, since you don't have a copyright from the Roman Empire, then we just can't possibly know.

And therefore, I mean, the anachronism, don't any of these folks ever study historiography or anything even slightly relevant to it?

It's just it's just amazing. Anyways, first, there's a story of some of the holy dead people coming back to life, arising from their graves after Jesus died on the cross, only reported in, quote,

Matthew, end quote, 2752, and not the other gospel accounts. Now, I just stop right there and everybody knows there was a big, big, big, big row recently about this very story.

Remember, Norman Geisler went after brain seizure,

Mike Licona. This is what happens when you're just going completely unprepared, just stream of consciousness type thing.

It must be what it is. It must be the changing barometric pressure because the storms coming in.

So we'll just I can find anything to blame. I look how white my beard is. It's just it's just real easy.

I had my eyes examined. They he shined. He's shown a bright light in my eyes. Now I can't think of anything straight.

Anyway, remember Geisler and Licona just raw and people lining up on on both sides.

And and I wrote a couple blog articles about it and talked about the stuff. So it's not like this is not a subject that hasn't come up before.

But notice, only reported in Matthew 2752. So. So what?

I mean, if all we had was Matthew, you wouldn't know it was only Matthew, would you? But we have four gospels.

So, you know, it's only Matthew. Why is that a problem? Why does Matthew have to include everything that Mark has or why does

Mark have to include everything that Matthew has? Why aren't these people free to do what they want to include what they want to include?

Matthew is a longer gospel than Mark. John gets to do what John wants to do.

How come? Why not? They normally don't answer those questions. This is a huge problem for pastors.

And from my experience, they skip over this and Bible studies the sermons. Now, remember, I did contact this guy and he eventually gets back to me and he goes, well, you know, you ought to read my bio.

I'm a former born again. To which I go, which I responded, I have never I do not know a single serious

Christian in this world that they ever left the Christian faith that they would describe themselves in that way. You would say I was

I made a profession of faith. That's not our language, even though according to his bio, he has a master's degree from some seminary.

I'm not a seminary that is well known, but some seminary somewhere, he's got a master's degree and was a

Christian for all of, I don't know, a few years, but that makes him an expert. And so now he's doing his atheist thing.

Anyhow. It's a huge problem for pastors. In my experience, they skip over this and Bible studies, which, of course, is why

I've been teaching through the synoptic gospels for how long now? Coming up on a decade, something like that. You know, you know, my

Hebrew series, I don't I never discuss any of the difficulties in the book of Hebrews. You know, no, don't ever do that.

Vicky Ann says Doc is easily baited. I'm not sure what that means.

However, it is impossible for Christian academics to dismiss the passage as a later edition and therefore not a part of the original inerrant word of God, because this passage appears in the earliest manuscripts.

Now, he just said that. He just said that. And you know what? He's right. There is no question whatsoever.

That this is original with Matthew, but then the very next sentence, second, there is the passage of Jesus claiming that getting bit by a poisonous snake won't hurt the believer.

Mark 16, 18. Obviously, that's not true. Now, I wrote to him and said, you know, you might want to do a little, a little more research, you know, for being a quote, unquote, scientist, and if he knows that there is no textual variant in Matthew 27, 52, how come he doesn't know that Mark 16, 18 is one of the biggest, biggest textual variants in the

New Testament? How come he doesn't know that? I don't know. But even leaving the textual issue aside for a moment.

Obviously, that's not true. Obviously, what's not true?

Is it possible? If God wanted to do so, I don't think that that promise is biblical by any stretch of the imagination, but let's say that was a big part of biblical revelation.

Are you telling me God couldn't do that? I mean, most people think that the, that particular story in the longer ending of Mark has its origination in what happened with the

Apostle Paul. Now, is it possible that Paul could have been bitten by a poisonous snake and was not hurt by it?

There's a lot of different ways that could have happened. I mean, God could supernaturally keep the snake from injecting the poison, or he could make the poison not have any effect.

The point is, if you assume naturalistic materialism, it's really easy to go, well, that doesn't work.

That can't happen. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But there's no defense of the presuppositions in this kind of stuff.

And so I just wrote back to him, and I pointed to Romans 1 and professing to be wise, they became fools and so on and so forth.

And he writes back and says, well, you do realize that Romans was written by people who thought that the sun circled the earth, don't you?

And I thought about that. I thought about that. I thought about it so much that last evening, unfortunately,

I wasn't able to record it because I forgot my iPad when I went to Wednesday evening service last night.

But I spoke on Proverbs 22, 28, where it says, do not remove the ancient boundaries which your fathers have set.

And I just talked about the incredible arrogance of modern people.

Now, here's a guy who obviously is incredibly ignorant of the scriptures. And so there's a tremendous amount of arrogance in writing stuff like this when you're really, this is a massive field.

And you're pretending like you've already come to the conclusions of all this stuff. There's a lot of arrogance there. But I'm talking more about the arrogance of the modern mind that basically says, if you don't have my cosmological knowledge, if you haven't read a brief history of time, you can't possibly have any insight into human behavior or the human self.

Now, I would submit to you that a large portion of people who have read a brief history of time didn't understand it.

Okay, so just having done that doesn't make you a real brilliant person. But just this idea that anybody before the modern period could not have really understood man.

Now, if you didn't have an iPod and you couldn't download from the

App Store, how can you know anything about man? That's the attitude. That's the way people think.

I mean, young people today, that's how they look at the previous generations. And that's why there is such an ease of overturning the cultural, moral, and ethical norms that were ours for generations.

Because young people go, those people ain't very smart. They couldn't do what we can do. We've grown up, well, playing video games.

Look what that's done for the current young generation of men. A whole generation of men.

And the amazing thing is, I was listening to, oh, what's his name?

Radio host. Jewish radio host. No, he's the other

Jewish radio host. He's a Jewish radio host who was on before Michael Medved.

Oh, what's that guy's name? Ah, see? Yeah, I know. He always talks about being happy.

Anyway, I was listening to him. Somebody's going to post it on the channel here in a second. Once the channel catch up.

It's not Medved. It's the other guy. He was talking this morning about the lost generation, about all these men who are, yes,

Dennis somebody. Dennis Prager, thank you. Thank you. Algo got it for us. Mutato said, is he

Goldberg? Yeah, anyway, he was talking about the lost generation.

That there are so many men today. They've never gotten married. They're still living with mom.

They get a job every once in a while. And they all play video games. They wasted, they didn't even know how to talk to a woman.

Because you generally don't have to talk to women in video games. You might have to shoot them, but you don't have to talk to them. It is amazing.

Lost generation. Used to be, if a child was living at home, it was the spinster daughter.

And that wasn't considered to be a bad thing. But when it's the son at 40, not so good.

Especially when he can't seem to hold a job. And there's a whole generation like that. A whole generation like that.

Somebody in channel is saying, hey, I'm married. We both play video games. Great. Wonderful. Well, you're lucky, bucko.

That you actually, I mean, there's young men that don't know how to court a woman.

They can text her. But they can't look into her eyes and talk with her. It's amazing.

Absolutely amazing. How did I get on that? Anyways, it's the modernist arrogance.

The modernist arrogance. Someone who did not have access to the same amount of knowledge of the physical universe can't know anything about man.

Can I say something? It seems to me that the more people learn about the physical universe, the stupider they become about man himself.

Look around today. You know, they're actually talking about establishing gender -free high schools.

Gender -free high schools. Did you hear Al Mohler talking about this? It was, what, two days ago on the briefing?

If you don't listen to the briefing, start listening. Gender -free high schools. And by the rules, if you have some 16 -year -old girl that is not happy about the fact there's a 16 -year -old guy in the stall next to her, she's the one that can be charged with bullying.

And this coming from people who know all about cosmology. But when it comes to actually knowing mankind, they are idiots.

Absolute idiots. I would like to suggest to you that the vast majority of us today, myself included, oh,

I love my technology, and yeah, it allows me to take in a huge amount of data.

But, but, we are the distracted generation.

We have been for years now. Most young people I know, scared to death of silence.

Scared to death of silence. They've always got, they've got earbuds.

Or now I guess earbuds are out. When, I missed the memo. Earbuds are out. You haven't been to, you want to know what's in?

Walk through airports. I get to do that a lot these days. Oh, airports, you get to see everything.

And now they've gone back to the big old headsets. Big old Bluetooth headsets.

I don't know why. But see, he knows. He's, you, you're out of it,

Rich. Come on. But it's the big thing now. I don't know what started it. But anyways, everybody is afraid of silence.

Because you see, then your thoughts, you have to deal with your thoughts. Or maybe your lack of thoughts. It's the same, and it's also, it's primarily due to the television set.

Or now the, what do we, you know, the plasma screen. Whatever you want to call it. And it has to be fast moving.

It has to be changing all the time. I've noticed as a teacher, my students struggle to have a meaningful, meaningfully long attention span.

I've got to do things to keep their attention. And the idea of thinking something through, thinking deeply.

I think that's why, that's why so many Christians struggle with canon issues. Or textual critical issues.

It takes extended concentration to understand the nuances and the basic foundational issues that help you to understand these things.

And for a lot of folks today, just can't do it. Can't do it. I look at the fact that I'm, I see 1509, 1564, he was only 55 years old.

I am five years younger than John Calvin was when he died.

Five years. I look at the volume and quality and depth of the materials that Calvin produced.

And I compare that with what I've produced. And I've written a lot of books. I mean, for most people,

I'm in the top .001 % of, I mean, 20 some odd books in one person.

That's a lot. Most people never write a book. I've written a lot of books. But in comparison to what those folks produced back then, they didn't have iPads, they didn't have computers, they didn't have lights, they didn't have

LASIK, they didn't have reading glasses, they didn't have air conditioning, and they had fleas.

They did! Don't you remember Erasmus? He thought they were demons. You couldn't get rid of them. I presume that's in the middle of him preaching sermons every week?

Well, that's where they came from! You've got to realize, Luther would preach twice a day. And that was written down, and that became his, and of course he had to be involved in editing it and stuff like that, but yeah, twice a day.

And Calvin was preaching daily, teaching daily. And I just sit here and go, how did they do that?

That's part of the reason they didn't live as long, obviously. They just burned out. But man, without all our gadgets, writing with quill, they outproduced all of us.

What I am suggesting is, we haven't gotten smarter, we've gotten dumber. Dumb and dumber.

In comparison, as far as depth of thought, and especially when it comes to recognition and understanding of the human nature.

We don't know nothing. We don't know diddly. And yet, modern man thinks they are just so smart.

Just so smart! And here's a good example. A guy who goes by the name of, what is it again?

Truman A. Smith. Yeah, okay. What do you want? What time is it?

How long did I ramble on today? Is it time for a break? If we were taking a break.

But there's no reason to take a break, because we're already past that point in time anyways. I guess. And I'm sorry?

What did I lose? Oh, you're making fun of me out there? Okay, fine. You go ahead and make fun of me out there.

That's alright, that's okay with me. I'll just move on to the, get back to some of the things that our friend

Mr. Hussein had to say at the East London Mosque. And we will move on from there.

I thought I saw a phone call? No? Didn't work, huh? Okay. That's okay.

I will actually leave that up lest we actually get some phone calls.

I'll go ahead. Tell you what. Let's open the phones. 877 -753 -3341. It's not like I have done anything that would cause people to want to call in today.

And I don't know if I want to talk to him because he's acting a little bit odd. Thank you.

Figgy just said that I'm rambling well. So it's better than rambling badly. I suppose that's a good thing.

But I'll dive back into some of the comments from Zakhar Hussein here. And if the phones light up then

I'll try to sort of leave a few minutes for each one and sort of back time into the end of the hour.

You know what back timing is? I don't worry about that anymore. See there's another thing where back when

I was young you had to use your mind more than today. Back when I was a radio announcer when

I was playing music you would have to back time into UPI news. And that meant you had to be able to look at a clock and go okay exactly at the hour

UPI has got to come up. So what you want to do is you don't want to fade out of a song to go into UPI.

What you want to do is you want to start the song so it'll end right then so you back time it.

So you actually start the song. This is back in the days of LPs. Yes for my daughter they were made of vinyl not vinyl.

But these big honking 33 LPs and I had these certain songs you know let's say it was you know three minutes and 27 seconds long.

Then you knew exactly when you need to start it. You know and then you'd start it you keep it potted down and then when the other song ended then you'd bring that one up and it would sound all natural and it would end right there.

Back timing. So we can try to back time into the theme which is supposed to come up if you're doing your part of the job which

I can't control. At 58. It's right at two minutes. Approximately.

Actually it's 57 .45. You never bring it up that early.

I usually do. You just don't happen to notice because I back timed it. Oh you well no. That's not back timing.

If you don't bring it up I can't hear it. You almost never bring it up before 58.

No. No. You will today though. I guarantee you will today.

I don't know what's wrong with me today. It's okay. All right. So as I said last time I started looking at this.

I forget where I was. I was I was actually in South Mountain Park somewhere and I forget why it was I was even listening to this debate.

I normally don't re -listen to my my own debates. I forget what the reason was that I did but I was in South Mountain Park.

I was listening to it. It might have just simply been that it was the next thing in my playlist.

And when you're going down South Mountain you don't stop to fiddle with your iPod.

You just listen to the next thing until you get someplace safe. And I was listening to Zaka Hussain's I've used the term shotgun approach.

I suppose that's one way because it's a just a blast of things or machine gun approach. We're just individual topics.

You'll find this in every apologetic situation. People I mean there are some

Jehovah's Witnesses are just experts at it. Just we'll just rat -a -tat -tat -tat things out. When you encounter somebody like that there isn't any one way to deal with it.

And when it's in a debate I respond to the vast majority of what he said. But I also did so by saying this isn't how you do debate.

That's why you're supposed to have a topic. That's why you're supposed to stick with that topic in the rebuttal period all the rest that kind of stuff.

Most folks don't really follow the rules of debate mainly because most people never studied much of debate. So he threw out all this stuff.

And I thought you know it would be useful to folks to hear brief responses to these arguments as they're put forward.

And so that's what we're going to do. And I've only gotten a certain ways into even marking them all down. As I said very very colorful screen in front of me right now.

But if folks want to comment on other things or have questions things like that 877 -753 -3341.

Otherwise I've got plenty of material here to get us through the end of the hour which is only 20 minutes.

Anyways so let's let's pick up with the next portion of Zucker's rebuttal.

Then I mentioned Jesus spoke about somebody to come after him. Who does not sound like 100 %

God which I'll get into. And then I mentioned that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's description and location can still be found in Song of Solomon.

Now remember if you've not heard this one. Zucker Hussain built his tent right on top of Song of Solomon 516 which

I just it took me aback. It really took me back. It is just some of the worst argumentation out there.

I think any linguist just chuckles at it. Well there's balsa wood and there's you know balsa has been associated with Mecca.

Well it's been associated with a lot of places. I mean this kind of thing can be used to prove anything. And of course

I also pointed out that in the Hadith you had a young Jewish boy. Who was dying. Who allegedly recognized

Muhammad from what was written in the Torah. Are you telling me that he had been reading Song of Solomon 516 and said oh there he is.

That guy right there. That guy walking by right there. There is a description of him. It's just it's such a massive leap by people who then will not see the prophetic witness of Jesus in Psalm 22.

What an amazing double standard. It really is. But that's what he did.

Okay. Now the first point I'd like to make is. When the

Quran says they will find. Which people of the book is it speaking to. Because we know there were many people who recognized

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. At that time when they were looking at the scriptures. When the Quran speaks to the people of the book.

It's not talking to the Christian who works in the barber shop and goes to the church every funeral.

Now this is interesting. This was a. I appreciate the fact. That Zucker tried to come up with an

Islamic response here because let's face it. The the Quran. Is not overly clear.

In its definitions of things the author of the Quran just assumes that you know what the original context was and very frequently you don't.

And it's interesting if you're going to make the accusation the people of book have changed their scriptures. Then.

Who was Muhammad talking to. I guess he was only talking to the quote unquote scholars. Well that's what he's going to. That's what he's going to say here.

And yet that doesn't fit the story of the young Jewish boy. Does it. So the hadith has one interpretation.

Modern Muslims have another. Ain't talking to the Jew who only goes to the synagogue once in a lifetime.

It's talking about those learning in the scriptures. Surah 13. I number 43 mentions the disbelievers say no messenger are you or Muhammad say enough for the witness between us is you and Allah and those who have knowledge of the scriptures.

So his argument is it would be the knowledgeable people of the scriptures. Well let me point out it's the knowledgeable people of scriptures.

Who are the least likely to find Song of Solomon 516. To be an application to a man who came 600 years later.

They know better than the linguistic gymnastics that Zucker is presenting.

That's why I am. If Dr. White thinks that the Quran is disproven because he cannot find these exact words of Jesus in the

New Testament. Maybe Dr. White can tell us why he's not consistent with the New Testament. Why don't he tell us where's

Matthew's words that he will be called a Nazarene. So that's my first challenge to Dr. White. Show me the sentence in the

Old Testament that he will be called a Nazarene. Now this was this is the kind of argumentation that the

Zucker presented. I had pointed out that the Quran says remember when

Jesus said this. Now if I were let's use an example from my own life.

Rich was mentioning to me that he had been talking with our good friend

Jason Wallace from up in Salt Lake City. And that there's been a lot of interesting stuff going on up in Salt Lake City.

I thought I had mentioned in the program. Maybe I didn't. I thought I had. Sometimes I hear stuff and I say

I'm gonna need to mention on the dividing line. And then three months later did I or did I not. Who knows when you when you're doing all this stuff and you don't have a secretary to keep track of things for you.

But anyways I had heard that Daniel Peterson had been dismissed from what used to be called farms.

The farms have been changed over to another name years and years ago. And that things they were changing up there.

The old guard was disappearing and I guess now the old guard has pretty much been put out on its ear.

And now they're sort of regrouping with their own people. And so there's sort of a split as to how to do

Mormon apologetics. And so there's a lot of stuff going on up there.

Let's say I had the opportunity. The crazed King James only street preachers decided to go do something else.

And we were actually able to start doing the temple outreach we used to do every six months.

And I was talking to a group of Mormons. If I said to them.

Well let's use an exact example. If I say to them now remember what

Brigham Young said. You see the truth no matter who presents it to you. Take up the

Bible and compare the religion of the Latter Day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test. Do you remember the reference to that?

You did once know the reference to that didn't you? Do you know this course is volume 16 page 46? You can tell

I've repeated that so many times that it is permanently tattooed on the inside of my brain. There are many other things

I've forgotten but that one I still remember. Now if I just said to them remember when Brigham Young said this.

And there's no place that any Mormon has ever seen where Brigham Young said that. Why would I say remember?

How would that be relevant? It would be untruthful of me to say remember such and so.

When the people I'm talking to has never heard it. Or if I were to say remember what it says in Doctrine and Covenants section 130 verse 22.

God the Father's body flesh and bones tangible as any man's. I'm asking them to remember to share something.

It's a point of information that is common to the two of us. So when the

Quran says remember when Jesus said this. It is an absolutely fair question to go when did

Jesus say that? Because if Muhammad's words are going to have any meaning whatsoever.

To the people they were talking to then there has to be some connection. So how does he respond?

Yeah well Matthew. Matthew says that the

Old Testament says that Jesus being in Nazarene was prophesied. Well where is that found? Now I'm going to try to put the best construction

I possibly can. Even on these rat -a -tat -tat type objections.

Let's see if I can interpret this in a meaningful fashion. And that is well if you're going to be consistent.

Then Matthew was making up stuff that the Jews never would have understood what he was saying.

I think that's the objection. Two responses. First of all that doesn't excuse

Muhammad. That's not an answer to my objection. And he was the one defending the assertion that the

Bible does prophesy of Muhammad. So he's the one that has to defend these things. He has to provide meaningful responses.

Secondly and this is where I made a mistake. I documented it the very next day. I was looking at Isaiah 11 and I put

Isaiah 14. But I had brought up the list of references and I missed it by one line.

But in Isaiah chapter 11 you have the text that talks about the netzer, the branch.

And you go well I think that's a real reach. If you know anything about Jewish biblical interpretation in Second Temple Judaism.

Then you know that the person to whom Matthew was writing would go okay not bad.

You may not like it. But the person he was writing to would have gone alright well we use that kind of interpretation too.

And okay. And of course we can increase the weight of the argument by the fact that Isaiah 7 through 11.

What do you have? Emmanuel. God with us. The prophecy of the coming one. Isaiah 9 -6.

It's all in one section here. So it's not that that's just one word, one verse.

And it's just plucked out of nowhere. There's something going on in the whole section. So that wasn't a response.

And you know. Zacher thinks he's real into nailing me for inconsistencies.

I think it's good to look for inconsistency. That is how you test truth. The problem is you've got to know a little something about the field that you're alleging inconsistencies in.

And I don't get the feeling. You know Zacher says I've done my homework. Well looking up sources is not the same as doing homework.

Putting together quotes. This is the same thing with the Sami Ameri book. Hunting for the word of God.

Putting together a long line of quotes. Without any understanding of how the person who said those words would have understood his own conclusions.

And then stringing them all together. That's not scholarship. And that's not showing understanding either.

So I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. We press forward. Remember Dr.

White I told you in my opening statement. You speak of consistency. You better be consistent tonight because every argument you say will be forced on Jesus's prophecies.

I've done my homework. I've been watching your debates and you are actually quite predictable. I knew you were going to find my name in the text.

But can you find a passage that's got my description and mentions Birmingham too Dr. White? And mentions

Birmingham. So what he's saying is. Well you know it's possible that you could translate this thing over here as red.

It's possible you could translate this as Arabic. And Balsa wood has been known to be in Mecca.

And so if you put this with this and that with that and that with that. Then you've got a description of where Muhammad came from.

Of course anything south of Jerusalem. They're going to connect with Mecca or Arabia or anything along those lines. I specifically address the anything south of Jerusalem argument.

But if I had wanted if I again want to engage in that kind of interpretation. Yeah I could have found a way of all

I got to do is look up something about Birmingham. And what's Birmingham known for. And I would be able to quite easily come up with just as many descriptions.

I mean it's like saying well you know Muhammad had some red in his hair. Oh he's the first one to have had that.

You know I mean seriously. It's like you know I've got a goatee. Well wow that's really unique.

This kind of argumentation is nothing in comparison to.

Well they parted lots for my clothing and they pierced me through and they said these words.

And you put it all together and you do that you know half a millennium prior to the events.

Not the same thing. Not the same thing. But that's what he's that's what he's stuck with.

Now he's saying that he made he made the claim he never substantiated. That there were

Jews. He doesn't say when. He doesn't say who. He just makes the wild that just the claim there were

Jews who read Song of Solomon as if it didn't have anything to do with Solomon. Well until I can interact with something like that.

It's like OK. Give me the reference. I'm unaware of anything like that.

Don't see any reason whatsoever. And something tells me that the. Even if there are. If even there is someone someplace.

That the vast majority of meaningful Jewish scholarship would recognize the original application of this text and we're not looking for anybody else.

So you know just throw it out. Well I've got I've got quotes. OK. From who. Modern ancient.

Who. Give give give us some more than that. By the way if you hear that.

We still haven't gotten the. DVD which

I've requested a number of times from MDI of of this. That's me writing this is this is the audio from my pen.

And some of you at your pen. Yes my Livescribe pen. That's how we get audio posted.

You know two hours after a debate is I go back to my you know I did it. In Dublin go back to my hotel room.

Plug the plug the thing in because it needs to be recharged. And bring the file over export it as I think

M4A if I recall something like that. Immediately convert to MP3 and ship it off to Rich and it's available on the website.

That's how we do it. So when you're hearing. That's the pen itself. It's sort of hard to avoid that aspect of the of the sound.

Dr. Y mentions that all of these Trinitarian things about comforter. He will be in the disciples.

Let me just educate the Christians on a little story of a man named Nicodemus. Once Jesus said to him to enter the kingdom of God you must be born again.

What did he say? Should we go back in our mother's womb? What did Jesus say to you? You're a teacher of Israel. You do not know these things.

Jesus was speaking figuratively. It seems Christians seem to see the same mistakes when it comes to the paraclete.

Did Jesus not say in John chapter 16 verse number 25. I'll spot all these things in figurative speech.

Let's get to point number one. Okay. There's a certain.

You got to give him. He's got attitude. As if none of us have any idea of what we're actually talking about or believe.

Matthew 16 25. These things I have spoken to you in figurative language. An hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language.

But I will tell you plainly of the father and that day you will ask him my name. I do not say that to you that I will request the father on your behalf.

For the father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came forth from the father. Obviously he wouldn't believe that Jesus ever said these words because they don't believe that Jesus would have addressed

Allah as father in this way. But notice the context is until now you have asked for nothing in my name.

Ask and you will receive so that your joy may be full. These things I have spoken to you in figurative language.

So what does that what does that mean? Does that mean when you utilize language like that?

Are you saying that everything that Jesus ever said because it was a short saying in a fixed form a general truth a proverb a saying something like that?

Does that mean it never has any meaningful application? So when Jesus said I will send you the

Holy Spirit. Well that's just figure of speech. Doesn't really mean the Holy Spirit to be sent.

My Muslim friends want to try to say well they've got to try to turn the paraclete into a human being who lived in Arabia 600 years later.

So everything about the fact that there is going to be a personal intimate relationship between the disciples and the paraclete.

That is going to be initiated immediately following Jesus's death burial resurrection which they deny anyway.

Has to be done away with. The amazing thing is here and I wonder if they sense this.

Are people like Zakir Hussain are they uncomfortable with the fact that they have to use the gospel of John for this?

Because elsewhere they just dismiss John left and right. Every bit of testimony to the deity of Christ.

Even Bart Ehrman recognizes the gospel of John presents the deity of Christ. It's no question about it.

They're stuck with it. Because the Quran specifically says that Jesus spoke of this one who is to come named

Ahmed. So where else are you going to go? You got to end up in John.

And the problem consistency wise is if you're going to say the sections about the paraclete have not been corrupted.

Then logically why do you say China 58 has been corrupted? Why do you say

I mean even in the sections you're quoting from Jesus refers to God as his father in a way that the

Muslims could never accept that he ever said. It is a wonderful example of the incapacity of our

Muslim friends to handle accurately or fairly our text. That they are forced to this by the teachings of their own text.

And I think I have just enough time for one other little clip here. Oh it would help if I was in the right program here and boom.

Dr. White says the world cannot receive him because it neither sees him nor knows him.

First point majority of the world has not received Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him because they neither see him and they do not know him.

That's why we're here right now to educate people. So the world does not see him or know him.

And that's true of Muhammad right? No the world. Again if you're just to interpret

John in John's context. Who's he talking about? The world over against the disciples. Read John chapter 17.

I do not pray for the world. I pray for those who have given me out of the world. The promise is this one is going to be in the disciples in distinction of the world.

And now he interprets world as being well we need to educate the world. We need to educate the world about Muhammad.

So they can then receive him? Are you going to say receive Muhammad into your heart now?

I really don't. I've never heard anybody doing that. But that's what they're saying. Anyhow.

There you go. There's a few more responses. There's still a lot of rat -a -tat -tat to be to be coming.

But hey if you're listening down in the Tucson area. Don't forget we'll be down here this weekend. At Faith Community Church.

And of course two weeks from now the 24th of March. At New Hyde Park Baptist Church in New Hyde Park New York on Long Island.

Going to be visiting JFK again. Haven't been there in a while. Look forward to seeing you then. 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 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.