Nadir Ahmed: Reviewed and Challenged

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:00

Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program, the need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

00:12

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday, yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

00:18

Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

00:25

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

00:34

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

00:45

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

00:51

Thank you. Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is

01:09

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.

01:19

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

01:25

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

01:35

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

01:42

James White. Hey, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a

01:47

Thursday afternoon, the last Dividing Line of 2007. Lord willing, we'll be around, maybe, hopefully.

01:59

I know, I talked about the big announcement, and we're still hoping to be able to make the big announcement on Tuesday, but we're not sure if we'll be able to make the big announcement on Tuesday, but we're gonna try to make the big announcement on Tuesday, because I'm not going...

02:15

I just watched Rich get up from the control board and walk away with his headset on, and I'm just watching the line reeling out, then boom!

02:27

And of course, it's out of my view when it happened. Of course, he's all bundled up in a coat.

02:33

It's zipped up. He's got the hood up, all in protest of the fact that I have yet to turn the heat on in my side of the office, because I like it cool.

02:42

It's 64 degrees in here, okay? I mean, you're already wearing all sorts of stuff.

02:48

64 is fine, and you got winter clothes and stuff on. I mean, come on. It's no big deal, you know?

02:57

He's brought me some water, too. Didn't need to bring me the water. Has it frozen before it got here? It's like walking in the deep freeze.

03:04

Walking into the deep freeze. Oh, I love it. You walk into his half of the...

03:10

his third of the office, and it's like the Bahamas in there, and and is your headset still in one piece there, brother?

03:24

It's such a professional thing that we do here. Never let anybody know this is actually a webcast, but anyway.

03:32

We're gonna try to make the announcement on Tuesday, then I'm gone through...

03:39

basically for a week, so I don't get back until the 8th, and so I think the next one will be,

03:44

I think, the 10th. We'll have the dividing line, so hopefully we'll be able to make the announcement before then. I suppose it's possible, if worse came worse, we could do you know, something while I'm in California, but I just don't think the timing is gonna work right one way or the other, so we'll see.

04:02

Just keep tuned to the blog to find out what's going on.

04:09

No, the announcement is not that Dave Hunt is debating Shabir Ali. Oh, that would be...

04:14

oh, goodness. Though that is going to happen, and that is just that every way you can describe wrong is wrong, so that's that's all there is to it.

04:25

But anyway, what I want to do today is we had a very interesting experience

04:33

Sunday evening at PRBC, and the experience was

04:40

I walked in, put my stuff down at my normal pew, and to turn around, and there is a gentleman with his hand out, and introduces himself as Nadir, and turns out he's with a man he introduces as being agnostic, and they've come to hear my lecture this evening, and they want to hear an apologetic for the resurrection, and Nadir mentions that he is a

05:08

Muslim, and so I'm sitting here the whole service, because I wasn't preaching.

05:16

I'm preaching this Sunday. It wasn't preaching last Sunday, and I'm sitting there the whole service going, is this

05:21

Nadir Ahmed, the gentleman that we have talked about on the dividing line? Well, a couple of years ago, we really haven't done anything with his materials.

05:31

We reviewed a debate he did with Sam Shamoon back in 2005 sometimes. It's been over two years, but is this the same individual?

05:40

And so as soon as the service is over, I go back, and lo and behold, yes indeed it is, and he has come primarily to challenge me to debate now why he's brought someone who claims to be agnostic along with him.

05:53

I have yet to be able to figure out, because whenever I tried to speak to this gentleman from just a basic theistic perspective,

06:04

I could tell Nadir did not appreciate, even when I mentioned things that he and I supposedly would agree with each other on, he spent most of his time either torpedoing me or attacking

06:18

Shabir Ali, who he says is not capable of defending the Quran, and even though, of course, he's a doctoral student in Quranic studies in Toronto, he's not capable of defending the

06:29

Quran, and as far as I know, at least, I was looking at some websites today, Nadir cannot read

06:35

Arabic either, so I'm not really sure where all that's going, but anyhow, we had an interesting conversation, and like I said, the primary purpose of this was to challenge me to debate, and so I, honestly, it had been so long,

06:53

I could not even remember the specifics of the debate with Sam Shamoon, so I went back and found on my older computer the sub -directory of sound files that I had, and then

07:04

I found some emails. One of the emails that were sent to me was, you know, you know, stop begging

07:10

Ergen Kenner to debate you, you look dumb, and various things like this, and so I have brought those sound files over to my laptop here, and then one of the emails he sent me had links to a debate he did with David Wood.

07:27

Now, we played some clips from the David Wood -Ali Atai debate that took place earlier this year, and so I've pulled, oh, about six or eight out of that particular contest as well, and I'd like to go back through them again, and so just to give you a taste of the apologetic methodology of Nadir Abugaye, and then toward the end of the program, hopefully,

07:58

Nadir either might be listening today, or we'll listen by archive, and we'll discuss his coming to the church and challenging me to debate.

08:11

So let's start with the comments from the

08:17

Sam Shamoon debate, and just offering some comments and some corrections to Nadir in his apologetic methodology.

08:27

Let me start off by saying that corruption comes in two forms. The first form is by corrupting the actual text itself.

08:35

For example, we have two books, Book A and Book B. Book A is the literal

08:41

Word of God, and let's say that in Book A it says that Jack went up the hill, and Book B is actually a copy of Book A.

08:52

So what I write down in Book B, I write, Jack went down the hill. So what I have done is that I have corrupted the word.

08:59

Instead of up, I wrote down. Another way you can corrupt the text is by corrupting it by your interpretation.

09:06

Going back to the same example, in Book A, if it says, Jack went up the hill, but my interpretation of that is

09:13

Jack went to a higher understanding of truth. That's what the verse means. So then what

09:19

I write down inside Book B is my corrupt interpretation, which is,

09:24

Jack went to a higher understanding of knowledge, of truth, excuse me. I don't write that Jack went up the hill, which is what

09:31

Book A states, and then Book A disappears and all we are left with is Book B.

09:36

So these are the two ways of how the Bible or how any scripture can get corrupted.

09:41

It can be corrupted by interpretation, as well as corrupting the very word itself. Now, in the conversation we had at Phoenix Reformed, he said that in six or seven minutes he could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt the corruption of the

09:57

New Testament. The problem is none of those descriptions were actually relevant to the scholarly study of textual criticism, and it is not a matter of you writing the opposite of what was written.

10:14

Normally, the vast, vast majority of textual criticism is not the negation of the original text at all.

10:20

It is a variant spelling, word order, homo teleutan, the skipping of words ending in the same, with the same endings.

10:29

Issues that I have no reason to believe Nadir is actually overly familiar with in any language,

10:36

Greek or Hebrew or Arabic. And then the interpretation is not a mechanism of corruption.

10:45

That's a completely different, a completely different animal. That's a completely different area of discussion, and yet that is the perspective that he presented in that.

10:56

Now, here is definitely one that is interesting to me, because this would be a subject that I would find very interesting to dialogue.

11:06

Let's listen to this next cut. Let's go on and take a look at another verse which talks about the corruption of the

11:13

Christian Scriptures. It says inside chapter 4, verse 157, And because of their saying, we killed

11:20

Messiah Esau, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him.

11:27

But the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man. Now, let me ask a question.

11:33

What book is it which teaches the Christians that Jesus is crucified? Any third grader can answer that.

11:40

It is the Bible. That is what the Christians use to justify their beliefs on crucifixion. Now, let me continue with a verse.

11:47

And those who differ therein are full of doubt. They have no certain knowledge.

11:53

They follow nothing but conjecture. Again, I ask the question.

11:59

What is it that the Christians follow which teaches them that Jesus was crucified? I think there can be no doubt about it that the

12:10

Christians follow the Bible. That's what teaches them. But look what the Quran says. They follow nothing but conjecture.

12:18

And conjecture is a form of corruption. Even Sam Shimon will agree upon that. So, can we also read this verse as saying they follow nothing but corruption?

12:27

Of course. And look what the verse says above. And those who differ therein are full of doubts.

12:35

They have no certain knowledge. People who believe in crucifixion have no certain knowledge. But we all know that they had the

12:41

Bible in their hand. So, this is not only talking about the Bible, but this is talking about all the

12:47

Christians that believe in the Bible, as well as the very Bible authors themselves. Therefore, not only do we find a clear charge of Bible corruption in this verse, but we also find a sweeping indictment of all the

13:03

Bible authors and all the people who follow them. The verse is clearly speaking of Bible corruption, and that conclusion is inescapable from this verse.

13:12

There is no way that the Bible can escape this indictment. And if I am wrong,

13:18

I challenge Sam Shimon to come to me and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Bible is actually exempt from this verse. I would like to see that.

13:25

Therefore, what we see here is that the Quran is clearly accusing the New Testament of corruption.

13:31

And it does it in its own little sweet way. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and that's the lesson we learn from it.

13:38

There's more than one way to convey the message that your book is wrong.

13:44

Now, you know, one of the reasons that I find that so interesting is because of the debate we just had with Shabir Ali.

13:50

Remember, Nadir is very negative towards Shabir Ali. He says

13:56

Muslims don't support him, that more Muslims support him than Shabir Ali.

14:01

I even said I have a feeling the members of the Islamic Dawah Center in Toronto might disagree with you.

14:06

He says, no, I think most of them would support me, too. And, of course, Shabir Ali is the imam there. But I would love to hear what

14:14

Shabir Ali has to say about those claims. I'm sitting here going, wow, man, you'd almost think

14:20

I was Shabir Ali. Actually, he was faulting me for debating Shabir Ali, because I'm picking the low -hanging fruit, basically.

14:26

I'm going after the easy guys and all the rest of that kind of stuff, which makes me go, yeah, okay. But the assertions that were just made about Surah 4, verse 157 are just so facile.

14:39

They simply do not flow from the text at all, even the translation that was read.

14:45

I would love to have Nadir explain from the Arabic how he gets the rendering he gave from Shabir Ali and why it is that there are so many other understandings of this text.

14:59

And I'd like to walk through the text in Arabic with him and see how he substantiates these types of allegations.

15:06

Some of those things would be rather interesting. So, then he comes up with what he calls the acid test.

15:12

Let's listen to what the acid test for the Bible is. Now, moving on inside chapter 48, verse 29, the

15:19

Quran presents an acid test. This is a test to show if the

15:25

Bible has been corrupted or not. It says over there, inside chapter 48, verse 29,

15:47

So what the Quran here is saying is that this verse is supposed to be in the Injil. So an uncorrupt

15:53

Bible is supposed to have this verse. So I would like Sam Shimon to come up and show me where this verse is in the

15:59

Bible. Because the Quran says this is supposed to be in the Injil. Which is, of course, the revelation given to Jesus.

16:07

And I don't think he will be able to find it. The closest you're going to find, I think, is Mark 27.

16:13

I'm sorry, chapter 4, verse 27. And that is, but yet, it's not the same. And when Sam Shimon will read the verse, you'll see this is not the same.

16:22

Therefore, we see that the Bible fails this acid test of the Quran.

16:28

Leaving the reader with no other conclusion other than that the Bible has been corrupted.

16:34

Now, let's think about what this means. We have a book written 600 years after the time of Christ.

16:40

At least 550 some odd years after all of the

16:46

New Testament. It's written by a man who Muslims claim is illiterate. He does not have access to the

16:52

Bible in Arabic. Because it hasn't been translated into Arabic yet. He does not have access to the Bible in Greek or Hebrew.

16:59

And yet, what clearly is his remembrance of hearing a text quoted by someone.

17:08

And he doesn't get it right. He gets some of the words right. But he has second, third hand knowledge of a text that was quoted from the

17:15

Bible. That then becomes the standard for the text of the Bible. Something written over half a millennium later.

17:24

This would be like someone coming along around the year 1000 or 1100. Butchering a text from the

17:31

Quran. This person can't read Arabic. He butchers a text from the Quran. And since that text isn't found in the

17:37

Quran, therefore the Quran is corrupt. There is the logic that we just heard presented. If nothing could demonstrate the circularity and upside down nature of that kind of argumentation.

17:48

I don't know what else could. But that was what was just presented to us.

17:55

All the documentary evidence of all the manuscripts and everything else. Just thrown out the window. And the

18:01

Quran. And again, this is only. And we're being generous here to say. Okay, and we'll go ahead and take this back to the death of Muhammad.

18:09

We're not even talking about the Uthmanic revision. We're not talking about all the questions about the compilation of the Quran over time.

18:14

And Qibla and everything else. We're even going with the most conservative Muslim presentation.

18:20

The origination of their own book. And still the evidence is so very strongly against that kind of stuff.

18:28

So anyways, I wasn't planning on going this direction at all today. I don't know we're going to actually get everything done here.

18:35

But we'll go ahead and sort of shelve the topic for just a moment.

18:41

And then come back to it. We'll be direct here, I think. And once we talk with Pierre, we'll go back to the subject of Islam.

18:53

But let's talk with Pierre first. Hi, Pierre. It's been a while since we've heard from you. Yeah, hi. Sorry to break up the rhythm of things there.

19:01

That's okay. I was hoping to call on a day when you might be more. Non -topical. Open topic.

19:07

Yes, yes, I understand. But on the other hand, because of the distance between our two cities,

19:13

I can't always get to you during the wintertime. I understand. Anyway, I read your articles on your,

19:22

I guess it's called a blog, on Mormon view of the conception of Jesus Christ.

19:29

And I guess you obviously object to what the

19:37

LDS General Authorities have to say. But I was wondering, what then is your view on the conception of Christ?

19:46

I don't think I've ever had anyone actually explain to me how

19:51

Christ was conceived. Well, first, do you understand why I've been addressing this? Oh, I think

19:57

I do. And would you agree that it has been the teaching of the General Authorities that the reason that Jesus possessed the power of immortality was because he had an immortal father?

20:09

Absolutely. So these BYU professors who are so lightly dismissing these things as never having been a part of the teaching of the

20:17

Mormon Church, are you offended when they do that? No, because I don't think they're dismissing it.

20:24

I think you're mistaken on that, which is one of the things I wanted to make mention of. So you read the commentary from Millett, and you think

20:32

I'm misunderstanding it? Yes. How? Well, I think the issue is sexual intercourse, as opposed to just simply conception.

20:42

And I think that's the key, in my view. And how do you differentiate? Well, none of the quotes that you quoted from all the

20:51

General Authorities, going back to even Orson Pratt, who perhaps was the most graphic, actually used that type of terminology.

20:59

Although, admittedly, Orson Pratt comes very close to saying that, but doesn't actually say it. So siring, literal father, can't get any more clear than this.

21:08

Those don't actually mean that since Elohim has a body of flesh and bone, that this—I mean, why would

21:18

Pratt even raise the issue of marriage between Adam and God the Father to Mary if—I mean, what—I'm sorry,

21:29

Joseph. That's what you mean. Joseph, yeah. Why would he even raise the issue? How is that even relevant? Well, I'm not sure that I can answer the question, but I think the thing that comes across very clearly to me in all the quotes that I've read from you, and other quotes that I've read from other people who raise the same kind of objections, never once do

21:51

I hear the General Authorities actually coming right out and blatantly saying that Mary and God the

21:57

Father had sexual relations in the same way that mortals do. Now, I think the best expression that I've seen so far is the one from Dr.

22:05

James Talmadge, who talks about it as being a—it was done according—the conception was in accordance with natural law, but a higher manifestation thereof,

22:18

I believe, is pretty much a quote. Was Mary a supernatural being? No.

22:24

Okay. And does God the Father have a body of flesh and bones? He does. Okay. And so when he sires a child and is called the

22:35

Father, and Brigham Young goes so far as to mock the idea of the Holy Spirit bringing about the conception of Jesus by saying if that were the case, then we should never give the

22:46

Holy Spirit by the laying out of hands, lest he beget children and they be pawned off upon the elders of Israel—that's from the

22:54

Journal of Discourses— you think that that's just something other than the natural relationships that exist between men and women, as in the publication that was put out by the

23:05

LDS Church. It had Mommy plus Daddy equals you, God the Father plus Mary equals

23:12

Jesus. I think the whole issue, as I see it, has to do with the mechanics by which

23:17

Mary became pregnant, which is why I wanted to ask your opinion on it, what is the

23:22

Christian view of it. But as I see it, in this day and age, we know that women can become pregnant without sexual intercourse.

23:31

And I think if men can do it, then certainly God can do it also. And that's certainly what the early writers of Mormonism would have been thinking.

23:40

Probably not. I didn't think so either. That's why I think that James Talmadge's view is perhaps the best.

23:47

I think they all stop short of coming right out and being blatant about it, because I think the

23:54

Scriptures are silent, and I think they don't know exactly what took place. And they know that. But I think what they want to emphasize is the fact that the seed of deity, the literal seed of deity, was implanted into the womb of Mary.

24:07

Okay, let me see if this is really what Brigham Young was saying. The Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said He did, and begat the

24:13

Savior of the world, for He is the only begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget

24:19

Him in person. Journal of Discourse is 1238. Do you really think that he's saying that this was artificial insemination?

24:28

Well, I'm sure that concept was unknown to Brigham Young. No, I don't think so.

24:34

But what I'm saying is that it is possible, and I think that's the objection which

24:40

Brother Millet has with regards to his statement with that girl, that young woman he was talking to.

24:48

How about this matter was a little changed in the case, the Savior of the world, the Son of the Living God, the man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary, the wife of Joseph, had another husband.

24:58

On this account, infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the

25:04

Almighty. The very babe that was cradled in the manger was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another being, do you inquire, by whom?

25:13

He was begotten by God, our Heavenly Father. Now, if you parallel Joseph not begetting

25:19

Him with God the Father begetting Him in the context of God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, and then there's this constant phraseology in Mormon theology called only begotten the

25:32

Father in the flesh? Oh yeah, no, I'm not arguing the point at all. Again, I think that it is very clear that the teaching of the

25:43

LDS Church is that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ, that the seed of deity was implanted into the womb of Mary and He conceived in accordance with natural law.

25:57

But the key, I think, that Brother Millet objects to in others is the concept of sexual intercourse.

26:03

We don't know that that actually took place. We don't know the mechanism by which Mary became pregnant.

26:09

So Joseph could have begotten Jesus without sexual intercourse? No, not Joseph, Elohim. But the parallel from Jung was

26:16

Joseph versus God the Father. So Jung didn't intend the parallel? No, of course he intended the parallel,

26:23

Peter. That's the whole point. Well, he may have. He may have. And he was a prophet. Yes.

26:29

Well, I'm just trying to explain what I believe is the issue here that I think you may be missing.

26:36

I think that Brother Millet is quite clear in his understanding, and I don't think there's any question that, that he believes that God the

26:43

Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ. Whatever literal Father means, it doesn't mean literal

26:49

Father. Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that Mary and God the

26:56

Father had intercourse in the same way that humans do it. How about, well, see, humans and God are of the same species, are they not?

27:04

They are. And how are spirit children begot in the spiritual preexistence?

27:10

Does the marital relationship cease to exist after death? Apparently the answer is no, but we have no idea whatsoever how that works.

27:20

And this is something we never talk about because we don't know anything about it. We just know that if we are worthy of exaltation, we shall continue to have children, both,

27:32

I might point out, in terms of spirit children, but also physical children. So the power of procreation isn't really procreation after death.

27:41

It's really just something else, but we're just using these words. No, I think it's real procreation.

27:48

We just don't understand, if you will, the physics, the medical aspects, or whatever term you want to use of exactly what takes place.

27:57

We don't know these things. These are things that are, you know, to be revealed to us later on if we're worthy to know and understand these things.

28:05

Okay. Well, in answer to your question, the biblical teaching, of course, is that the conception of Jesus Christ was a virginal conception.

28:15

It did not involve sexual intercourse between Mary and anyone. It involved the work of the

28:20

Holy Spirit overshadowing her and causing the conception to take place. There is no reason for even the connection of the term

28:30

Son of God and the only begotten Father in the flesh. Issues like that really derive only from the

28:38

Mormon misunderstanding of the nature of God, not from anything relative to the biblical teaching, because the only reference that is given to us, for example, by Luke, is that the power of the

28:50

Most High will overshadow you and that which is conceived within you will be called the

28:55

Son of the Most High. In other words, this is God's doing. He certainly is capable as the creator of all things, not the organizer of all things, but the creator of all things, of causing a conception to take place so that the child that is born is truly man and yet does not require the input of any kind of mechanical or medical technologies or anything along those lines.

29:25

He who created man is certainly capable of bringing that kind of miraculous conception about.

29:31

Just as we have miraculous conceptions in a different way amongst, for example, the elderly with Abraham and Sarah, the opening of the womb in John the

29:42

Baptist's mother, etc., etc. So given that the foundational difference between Christianity and Mormonism will always be, unless Mormonism repents of believing

29:54

Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or basically anybody up to the current prophet were prophets, is the fact that we believe that God is the self -existent sustainer and creator of all things and is not an exalted man who lives on a planet that circles the star named

30:10

Kolob, as the book of Abraham chapter 3 would seem to indicate, and therefore is capable of miraculously intervening in his creation in any way he sees fit, and he did so in the words of scripture at the fullness of time, as Paul would put it.

30:30

So the major difference between that and the idea of literal offspring,

30:36

God siring, God having body of flesh and bones, again goes back to the nature of God. And that will forever be that which separates

30:44

Mormonism from the Christian faith. So a follow -up question here to better clarify the issue, where did the male genetic material come from?

30:58

It's a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit of God. So the Holy Ghost created, if you will, the male chromosomes that fused with Mary's chromosomes, is that it?

31:08

That would be the only way that a functioning human being could be created, yes. So that means, what role did

31:14

God the Father do? I mean, it sounds like the Holy Ghost conceived him, therefore the Holy Ghost would be the father of Jesus Christ.

31:20

Well, again, as I pointed out, that comes from the Mormon misunderstanding of the relationship of father and son.

31:26

That terminology is eternal. That is a terminology that is not the result of one giving birth to or siring another.

31:36

That really goes back to paganism rather than to the Christian understanding of the eternal nature of God.

31:42

So Jesus is not the son because of the incarnation.

31:48

Jesus was, in fact, Colossians chapter 1 describes Jesus as the son long before the creation itself. So that is not due to any kind of begettal, whether it be physical or spiritual, on the part of the father.

32:00

That's not why the father is the father or the son is the son. Those are relationship terms that transcend the human.

32:05

And the major error of Mormonism is taking the human and casting it back upon the divine rather than recognizing that God is absolutely unique.

32:14

That takes us back to Isaiah 29 and 16, which rebukes those who try to make

32:21

God in the image of man. What then is your understanding of the phrase which is used several times in the scriptures, only begotten?

32:29

Again, that again is a – first of all, it never says in the flesh. No, it doesn't, but it says only begotten.

32:35

Yeah, well, monoghanies, there is an entire discussion of the Greek term monoghanies in my book on the doctrine of the

32:40

Trinity. It is best translated as unique. It is used both of Jesus as son as well as the os in John 118.

32:50

He's called the unique God or the only son who is in the bosom of the father. There's a number of ways of different translating

32:56

John 118, but it refers to the unique relationship. There is no other son of God like Jesus because that relationship of father and son has itself been eternal.

33:08

It has never been – there has never been a time when the son did not exist as the son because the relationship of the father and the son is one that does not have a beginning.

33:20

It was not something that came into existence at a point in time, and so that is absolutely unique, and that is what monoghanies with only one new.

33:29

If you had two news there, that would refer to begettal, but one new refers to in that particular text.

33:35

Okay. So the word gene is different when used elsewhere?

33:40

Genos means to beget. Genos means kind or type. Genos has one new. Genos has two. Monoghanies has one, so it refers to kind or type.

33:48

Monoghanies means one of a kind, not begotten in the sense of created. Yes, that's correct. Okay, because it's translated in my

33:56

Greek in a linear as only begotten. Well, there's at least a page, page and a half, maybe two pages of lexical resources and the like in the

34:05

Forgotten Trinity that would help you to see where the issues are in regards to monoghanies. Okay.

34:10

All right, Pierre? All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much for your call. Bye -bye. All right. We continue on with looking at Nadir Ahmed.

34:21

And Nadir Ahmed, say it correctly here, we looked at the acid test, which was turning the text upside down.

34:29

Then we have some more textual problems. Now, we go to volume, excuse me, we go to Abu Dawood, volume 9, book 92, number 460.

34:42

Narrated Abu Huraira, by Abu Huraira, the people of the book used to read the Torah in Hebrew, and they explained it in Arabic to the

34:50

Muslims. Allah's Apostle said to the Muslims, do not believe in the people of the book, nor disbelieve in them, but say we believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.

35:03

So we are supposed to say we believe in what was revealed to you. But don't confirm or deny what they're saying from the

35:08

New Testament. And I'm asking why, if the New Testament was 100 % pure word of God, why did the

35:15

Rasulullah give us this strong warning? But here we see another clear proof that the

35:22

Bible, which is in the hands of the Christians, this book is corrupt. A big problem there, he switched from the reading of the

35:30

Jews in Hebrew to the New Testament being corrupt. The New Testament was not written in Hebrew, and the

35:37

Jews would not be reading from the New Testament in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew.

35:44

And so that entire point was just a little bit completely without merit.

35:52

Now, Sam Shimon, of course, on the Internet and talking with his Christian friends, has been promoting the view that the

35:59

Bible is the uncorrupt word of God, the pure word of God. Now here we're going to find out, here we're going to listen to Nadir equivocate on the subject of what corruption means.

36:13

And he used that term again Sunday night at PRBC. So here, listen and see if you can catch the equivocation, where the term is being used in two different ways.

36:23

You see, scholars who have actually studied these issues refer to corruption as to any textual variant.

36:32

And if Nadir was going to be consistent, he would have to say that the Quran has experienced this, because the

36:38

Ithmanic revision demonstrates that it did. You would not have to have burned the preceding materials if there had not been differences.

36:45

The Hadith clearly says that there were. So you would have to say that the text had been corrupted using that very narrow technical use of the term at that particular point in time.

36:58

Then there's another use of corruption, which means you don't have any idea what it originally said.

37:03

Doctrines have been put in, taken out, everything else. Every ancient document that was passed on via handwriting would be corrupted in the first sense of that term, which means there's textual variation within it.

37:18

But that doesn't mean it's corrupted within the second sense of that term, as in we don't know what it originally said.

37:25

And so by many, many people, atheists and others, but Islamic apologists as well, will traffic on equivocating on the word corruption.

37:34

They'll go to Metzger and say, oh, even the title of his book, you know, the corruption of the New Testament text and its restoration and so on and so forth.

37:40

And they will hope that their audience doesn't know the difference between these two and can't tell the difference between those two uses.

37:48

And here's where Nadir does this very thing. In fact, on July 1st, here on Paltalk in front of an audience of Orthodox Christians and Jews, he was seeking some help on Jeremiah 8.

38:01

This is what Sam said. I don't believe that anyone can corrupt the Bible. He said it was a pure word of God.

38:09

And he agreed with the Orthodox Jews in their belief that the Old Testament was 100 % pure word of God, which is what pretty much what most evangelical

38:18

Christians believe, and he's just basically reassuring them of their faith. But now, ladies and gentlemen, prepare for the shock.

38:27

I said, prepare for the shock. Prepare for the shock. Because when Sam Shimon is confronted with biblical scholars or qualified critics of the

38:36

Bible, this is what Sam Shimon has to say about the uncorrupt, pure word of God.

38:59

Now, you know, I stop right there because I recognize where that's from. That is from, I believe it's from Sam's debate with Shabir Ali.

39:08

Didn't Nadir just refer to Shabir Ali as a credible person, as a person who is a scholar?

39:15

Sounds like that's what he did, but you wouldn't have gotten that from listening to him on Sunday night. So we see here, he says, no manuscript has come down very and free.

39:24

And in the Bible, we can find the corruption in there. We know where it is. And they go, but by the way, your

39:30

Koran is the same way, which, by the way, that's going to lead to the next debate, in which, inshallah,

39:36

I will debate him on the authenticity of the Koran, and I will prove that the Koran is 100 % authentic, inshallah.

39:43

So Sam Shimon has to come clean tonight. He has to tell us, what does he believe about the

39:48

Bible? So, you know, what

39:53

I'm hearing over and over again, as I've been listening to these again, as I listened to the debate with David Wood today, is this willingness to just throw stuff out, hoping something sticks, that generally, you know, could never actually be discussed to any depth, because there's no depth behind the study itself.

40:16

And that's the problem. I'm going to skip down here, because we lost a little time there. Let me, you know,

40:22

I did play this one a long time ago. This is what happens when you isolate things from their context. This is

40:27

Nadir Ahmed. The Koran is corrupted. That's what he said. Now, he went back and corrected it, but see what you can do when you isolate things without a context?

40:37

It's really, really easy to do, unfortunately. So, anyway, let me look at, let's listen to this one here.

40:49

And go. If you read the Bible, you're not going to come out with a Bible saying, oh, yeah, there are other gods other than Allah, or that there are human gods and stuff like that, because the

40:58

Bible, there's so many places that show that Jesus was a human being, and that's the point on that. Again, both points were addressed by Sam Shimon, and he jumped up and said, oh, my

41:06

God, it's the uncorrupted Word of God. This doesn't prove that it's the uncorrupted Word of God. It's simply pointing to specific truth mentioned in your book, and it's telling you to act upon the truth which is in your book.

41:20

Now, there are so many texts in the Bible that prove that Jesus was a human being.

41:28

Well, congratulations. That is, of course, exactly what

41:33

Christians do believe is that he was the Word made flesh.

41:40

And, you know, it's frustrating to listen to that kind of thing, because I put out so much effort to accurately represent other groups when

41:52

I am disagreeing with them, but so many of them will not put out the same kind of effort.

41:57

So what I did is I went ahead and started listening to the debate that took place at a later point in time, and this between David Wood and Nadir Ahmed.

42:10

And here's some of the quotes from that. I'm obviously rushing with these to try to get them in. Let's listen to this one.

42:17

If he keeps pressing that issue, well, then I'm going to go ahead and respond to this issue of the alleged 25 ,000 manuscripts of the

42:24

Bible and how it's been so perfectly preserved. 25 ,000 manuscripts of the Bible? No.

42:30

25 ,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, about 5 ,400 of those in Greek, that is in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Boheric, etc.,

42:38

etc. What do you mean alleged? This isn't alleged. This is documented, and it's nothing about allegation at all.

42:46

But there has to, again, accuracy is sort of important. It would be nice to have some accuracy in recognizing the difference between the

42:54

New Testament and the Bible as a whole. Then here is an amazing one.

43:00

Here, evidently, Nadir believes that the atheist arguments against the resurrection and the incarnation are actually valid because here we have an extremely facile, very simplistic recitation of one of the common arguments you hear from atheists, a commonly bad, easily refuted argument you hear from atheists, and here's an example of it.

43:32

Hindus, we also see the same concept of man worshipping. For example, they have several avatars.

43:38

These are basically, once again, God coming down in the form, walking on this earth. So this concept of,

43:47

I guess, how David shared with us that God, Jesus is God, basically coming down in the form of a man, this is something not new.

43:57

This is something which just didn't originate in Christianity. This has existed prior to Christianity in pagan religions.

44:05

Let me give you some examples, more examples. Let's look at Greek Roman mythology.

44:10

They believe in actually a female goddess. God came in the form of a man, a semi -Aramis, and she was viewed as the mother of God, and she was actually the fertility goddess, and in fact she gave birth to all the human gods related to Nimrod.

44:24

And then, of course, finally we get to Christianity. Christianity has the same belief about God -man, that Jesus came in the form of God and walked upon this earth.

44:35

Or, I'm sorry, God came in the form of man and walked upon this earth as Jesus. Now, Christianity has the same belief.

44:42

No, Christianity doesn't, because none of those beliefs, none of those religions mentioned, believed in monotheism.

44:52

None of them believed in one God. None of them believed that their God is the creator of all things.

44:58

None of them believed that their God was eternal and the creator of everything else that exists.

45:05

So, at the very foundation, there is a fundamental difference that is just ignored in this simplistic throwing out of this kind of silly argument.

45:16

Ah, well, see, there's nothing new here. It was very new for anyone who is a monotheist.

45:21

It was certainly new for the Jews to contemplate such a concept. And so he continues on, and he does what

45:31

I would have to call the Osiris face plant. How many times have we discussed the utter foolishness of drawing upon Dionysius and Osiris, and we've documented this over and over again, but simplistic argumentation works well in many situations, so here it goes again.

45:52

Now let's look at the idea of resurrection as David shared with us. About God came in the form of a man, died, and then was resurrected from the dead.

46:03

Once again, this idea of the dying and rising God, this did not originate in the

46:10

Christian faith. This originated in religions before. So, dying and rising gods.

46:16

Now, we've heard this from Robert Price. We've heard this from all of our, you know, the blasphemy challenge people and all the rest of this stuff.

46:24

And we've taken on the best of them demonstrating. Remember, let's remember Osiris.

46:30

This is the example he's going to use. Osiris is the fellow who is chopped up into like 14 pieces.

46:39

And, well, initially he's killed, and then he goes down the Nile, and his wife finds him and brings his body back.

46:46

And then his, I think it's his brother, chops him up into like 14 pieces. And she goes through and tries to find all of them.

46:52

And in some stories she finds all the pieces, and once she's missing a piece, that would be really a bummer. But I'm 1314th here.

46:59

And then this quote -unquote resurrection is not the resurrection of a physical body in the real world.

47:04

He becomes, in essence, a zombie in the afterlife and rules in the afterlife. Now, we're talking about a polytheistic system here.

47:12

Egypt, Egyptian gods. No creator God. No real resurrection. Not coming back in the same body after having died.

47:20

Not coming back to Earth. There is no meaningful parallel here whatsoever to any serious -minded person, but...

47:28

For example, we have Osiris. Osiris was a pagan god who died and was resurrected.

47:35

And we have other examples of dying and rising gods. The concept of the son of God, once again, it is not something new to Christian faith.

47:46

We find a lot of these teachings coming from the pagan religions. Now, isn't it ironic that Pierre just called it that?

47:55

Because, honestly, the only religion that calls itself Christianity, which it isn't, but the only religion that calls itself

48:02

Christianity, which the vast majority of Islamic apologetics would have validity against, is

48:08

Mormonism. Because only the Mormons actually believe what the Muslims think all the rest of us believe.

48:13

That God the Father actually begat Jesus with Mary. So, we didn't plan that, did we?

48:22

No, that was completely ironic. In fact, before Jesus, there was a

48:27

Roman ruler by the name of Augustus Caesar. He was called the son of God and worshipped as God.

48:32

And we even have golden coins today which state that he was the son of God. So, my point is this.

48:39

The early Christian community, now the very diverse community of people, was not monolithic. They believed in different things about Jesus.

48:46

But those people who did make Jesus into God and made him into the dying and rising

48:52

God, what I believe, maybe they had good intentions, I don't know. But I believe they were looking at the pagan gods and they were saying, wait a second, how much we should decorate our

49:02

Jesus in the same way that the pagans decorate their gods and goddesses. Oh, yeah, there's just all sorts of evidence.

49:09

That's exactly what the early Christians were doing. And that's why they were persecuted by the pagans, right?

49:17

For acting like the pagans. No, that's not why they were persecuted by the pagans. It's because of the exact opposite of that.

49:25

I mean, this kind of stuff is so easy to throw out to people who have no knowledge whatsoever of church history, the

49:34

Roman religions, stuff like that. But how do you seriously tell people things like this and say, yes, this is true?

49:42

This is real. It's like how people venerated son of gods and god man.

49:49

It's like, you know what? Same thing. Jesus died and was raised from the dead, just like Osiris and the other pagan gods.

49:55

Yeah, like Dionysus, right? So when we look at historical evidence, David, we have to look at everything. We have to also look at how these concepts also originated in other religions.

50:07

This is historical evidence. It's about the Christian apologists. They brush this under the rug, and they don't want to look at that.

50:13

Yeah, Christian apologists. I get the distinct feeling that Nadir has not read any of the

50:20

Christian apologetics works on these subjects that go through the

50:25

Osiris myth and Dionysus and all the rest of that stuff. I just don't get a feeling that that's really been on the forefront, and that's what makes people wonder a little bit.

50:37

I grabbed this one because this is one that should echo a little bit of what you all have heard me say many times.

50:46

We have to be consistent. When we debate the atheists, we can't switch gears, okay? Yeah, we've got to be consistent.

50:53

We can't have different standards here now, because you know what somebody says.

50:59

Inconsistency is the mark of a failed argument. We'll keep that one.

51:05

We're going to keep that one ready for use. Then Osiris came up again a little bit later on.

51:11

Now, the thing about Osiris, we both agree that he did die and resurrect. But he was just saying that this—

51:17

No, we don't agree that he died and was resurrected. This was a myth, and it was not a resurrection.

51:25

There is no parallel to resurrection. Taking 14 pieces and sticking them back together again in the afterlife is not a resurrection.

51:34

That is not a parallel in any meaningful sense at all. Resurrection is a little bit different from how

51:40

Jesus' resurrection is, but still. It's a little different.

51:46

Just because it's putting parts back together again in the afterlife, that's no big deal.

51:53

Body coming out of the grave, you know, seen by people. Well, it's just a little bit different.

52:00

Point to be noted, this idea did pre -exist before Jesus. The resurrection of Osiris, this was a story which did exist before the

52:09

New Testament was written. And if you go to christianthinktank .com, I believe— Let's go to a website.

52:14

They also acknowledge that fact. So we even have Christian apologists that acknowledge that. Well, any serious

52:21

Christian apologist will acknowledge that even the attempt to make the parallel is, at its very least, bankrupt over and over again.

52:30

Now, one of the amazing things here, and I may have to go just a little bit long here.

52:37

I've got a few more to play. Nadir comes up with standards.

52:44

He just pulls them out of the air and then demands that everybody else agree to his standards.

52:52

And in this debate, he came up with the insignia of God. He came up with what he thinks is the standard that we all have to go by.

53:01

What he does is he finds a reference in the Koran to an ancient city, says that the

53:09

Arabs back then didn't know what the city was, but then says it was discovered later, and therefore this proves the

53:14

Koran is inspired. And he admits the Old Testament does the same thing, but then basically his big challenge is, make the

53:20

New Testament do this. This is the insignia of God. If you can't find this, then your book isn't inspired. So if your book doesn't make reference to some ancient city that you believe nobody would have known of, except by supernatural means, then there's no other mechanism of demonstrating that your book's inspired.

53:36

And I'm just left going, that's not even an argument that the Koran makes.

53:41

So why should we accept this as being the insignia of God anyway?

53:47

But here's Nadir. Jesus did rise and die from the dead. Even though that didn't happen, the evidence is against it.

53:53

But see, it's not germane to the topic. Because God has His evidences. What is His evidence?

53:59

We talked about the insignia of God. And that was mentioning cities which mankind did not know about, only later to be discovered in an archaeological dig.

54:10

This is the insignia of God. We also talked about prophecies about the Jewish people.

54:16

This is the God of Israel, and this is His insignia. Oh, by the way, what that was, was, remember recently when

54:26

Israel built a wall to protect herself against suicide bombers?

54:33

Actually, homicide bombers. He calls them the terrorist state of Israel, and quotes a verse from the

54:40

Koran that says the Jews will fight you from behind the walls, and therefore this is a fulfillment and demonstration of the proof that the

54:46

Koran is true, because Israel put up walls to keep homicide bombers out. So that's how you prove the

54:52

Koran is true. The Bible does not have that. I'm not saying that the

54:57

New Testament is not inspired. That's not my argument tonight. It's just not inspired by the God of Israel, because it does not bear

55:04

His insignia upon it. So there's the insignia. The insignia is talking about old, ancient cities that nobody knows about.

55:12

I'm not sure why anyone should believe that that's relevant, and one of the debaters,

55:18

I'm not sure if this is David Wooden, because the voice sounds different. I think some of this was difficult to follow, but here's the refutation

55:27

I thought was very good that was offered of this. Yeah, I'll say this. As far as the insignia of God is mentioning a city that no one knew about, again, well, the

55:37

Old Testament has that, but I'm going to say this. If having good historical evidence that a man was dead, so much so that scholars call it indisputable, atheist scholar calls it indisputable, having that sort of evidence, and then scholars granting that the disciples believed they saw

55:56

Jesus, that there's an empty tomb, that Paul and James, who were skeptics, who were anti -Christian, became

56:04

Christians as a result of this appearance, and the only interpretation that actually accounts for all the facts being is the resurrection of Jesus, and you say resurrection?

56:14

That has nothing to do with the signature of God. Mentioning a city, mentioning an old city, that's proof.

56:21

That's proof. Resurrection. A man rising from the dead, which never happens, a resurrection, that's just meaningless.

56:28

I say you're really being biased, and I think if Islam had anything remotely similar to the resurrection of Jesus, I think they'd be proclaiming it from the rooftops.

56:38

Exactamundo. And hopefully the audience certainly saw that, that mentioning

56:44

Imram or something like that, that's ancient city, that makes us true, and resurrection doesn't mean anything.

56:52

Okay, well, fine, wonderful. Well, one more to play here, and then you'll see why

56:58

I pulled this one out. I challenge you to produce one evidence from your book. Okay, fine, you don't have

57:03

God's insignia? Then just give me one evidence, and I will assure you, people like Mike Lacona, people like James White, these apologists, they will never debate me.

57:15

Unfortunately, I'm the only Muslim in the country today who's actually presenting this challenge of the archaeological evidence, the prophetic evidence, and they know that.

57:25

And these apologists like Mike Lacona, James White, and all these people, they've been ducking and dodging me, because they can't answer either.

57:33

Neither can David Wood or any of the other apologists. Well, so, let me see if I understand this.

57:42

An argument about an old city, an argument, the insignia of God, and then another big thing about this debate was, because Islam bans alcohol, his constant argument was, this saves children from fetal alcohol syndrome, and that literally billions, he kept saying billions, it's sort of hard to actually believe that, but billions of babies would have been saved from fetal alcohol syndrome.

58:12

Of course, there haven't been a billion babies who had it, but they would have been, if there had been, have been saved by the

58:18

Quran, and that makes the Quran the word of God. There you go. Now, other religions likewise ban alcohol.

58:26

That means nothing. Don't even think that means anything, but because Islam bans alcohol, therefore that makes the

58:37

Quran true. So, evidently, what I just heard was, is that we won't debate this man, because those arguments, old cities, the insignia of God, and alcohol, and the fulfillment of prophecy in Israel building a wall, the triumvirate, the three -pronged demonstration of the truth of Islam, is just too much for us to be able to handle.

59:05

Wow. Well, you know, I, for a long time, have not given much thought to Nadir Ahmed, because of the fact, that I just don't find this kind of argumentation to be at all compelling, and I don't see any evidence that Nadir is actually taking the time to do the kind of study to present coherent argumentation on the textual critical issues, on even the defense of the

59:39

Quran at that point. I just don't see any evidence of it. And I also do not like his followers who are bullies.

59:47

I do not like the language that Nadir has used in writing to me, in saying, you're afraid of me, and stuff like that.

59:53

And people like that are obviously just trying to get attention for themselves, and so on and so forth.

01:00:00

But I also was corresponding a little bit today with David Wood, and he made an excellent point.

01:00:09

He, you know, he would recognize along with me, that the people like Abu Omar Yasar Khadi and Shabir Ali are significantly more aware of Western thought, they're more scholarly, they can quote resources that clearly

01:00:29

Nadir Ahmed has never even looked at, has never taken the time to study. But who more clearly represents the

01:00:41

Muslim street? If you are on the Muslim street, not just in the

01:00:46

West, but in Muslim countries as well, which of the two kinds of arguments are you going to hear against Christianity?

01:00:55

Are you going to hear Shabir Ali's? Or are you going to hear Nadir Ahmed's? And the fact of the matter is, as David would point out, he's more representative of the standard kind of argumentation you get from most

01:01:12

Muslims. Same with Ali Atai and his arguments against Paul and stuff like that, in the debate that we listened to portions of a few months ago.

01:01:20

They're more representational than the high -level scholars. Now, the high -level scholars might wish that they would do some more research.

01:01:31

But again, what are you supposed to do if you want to provide a response to what

01:01:37

Christians are actually hearing, who are trying to defend their faith, who are in this situation where this is the kind of argumentation that's being presented to you?

01:01:45

There is a danger of shooting so high. When we were outside the gates of the temple in Salt Lake City, there were a lot of bad arguments presented to us by more missionaries.

01:01:57

And they're repeated over and over again. And the temptation is, oh, here we go with James 2 again.

01:02:03

And I've responded to this 47 ,000 times before. And so this guy should know that I've responded to this 47 ,000 times before, right?

01:02:11

No, he doesn't know that. He just got out of the backwoods of Utah. And he needs you to be just as clear and just as patient in responding to the same bad argument that you've responded to 47 ,000 times before, as you were the first time you responded to it, when it wasn't quite as bad an argument for you because it was the first time you heard it.

01:02:32

And so, yes, there is everything right in responding to the best the other side has to offer.

01:02:41

That's important, and that's good. But you also have to respond to some of the less best that the other side has to offer.

01:02:48

Now, I'm sorry. We just listened to Nadir saying that he's the only one out here saying these things.

01:02:53

Man, as soon as you hear anybody, I don't care what their religion, saying they're the only one out there saying these things, that's probably a real red flag that they're a little bit off the bubble, a little bit on that type of thing, and might be just a little bit too impressed themselves at that point because that's just simply not the case.

01:03:16

But here is what I would like to offer to Nadir Ahmed. I have invited him to call the program before.

01:03:24

He has never been willing to do so. As I have been speaking more and more on the subject of Islam, I know of at least one situation in the coming year where I'm speaking at a conference, and I have been asked if I would be willing to do a debate at the beginning of the conference to get things going.

01:03:44

I'm going to be speaking on Islam as a subject there, and so they asked would it be something we could arrange.

01:03:52

And so I would like to challenge Nadir Ahmed to do two things.

01:04:00

In one instance, I would like to defend the teaching of the deity of Christ.

01:04:09

His statement is, he has stated, if you read the New Testament, you will never come up with the idea of the deity of Christ.

01:04:17

I would like to demonstrate that that is untrue. And in that, I would be defending my

01:04:23

Christian faith. In a second debate or first debate, depending on the order we want to do it in,

01:04:30

I would like to actually do this one first because I've already defended the deity of Christ against a

01:04:35

Muslim apologist. That was Hamza Abdul Malik about seven, eight years ago now, in 1999 specifically.

01:04:42

I would challenge Nadir Ahmed to defend what the

01:04:49

Quran says about the crucifixion from Surah 4, 157. Now, we just debated

01:04:55

Shabir Ali, but Shabir Ali takes an unusual, not exactly normative understanding of Surah 4, 157.

01:05:05

Obviously, Nadir takes the substitutionary theory that someone was made to look like Jesus, and I would very much like to examine that type of assertion from someone who actually does believe, as he does, that this text denies that Jesus was even crucified.

01:05:25

As we have noted, Shabir does believe that Jesus was crucified, but that he did not die. That is not the majority view of all

01:05:33

Muslims or even a majority of Sunni Muslims. Those would be what

01:05:39

I would be interested in doing. Obviously, what would be just as...

01:05:45

In fact, you know what? Let me change that. I'm doing this on the fly. No, I'm not. The deity of Christ would be great, maybe a little bit down the road, since we already have a debate on that subject.

01:05:54

What we don't have a debate on would be, I would like to defend against the allegations. Since he raised this, this actually came up in my own church.

01:06:02

I figure if he's going to walk into my own church, this might even be better. I will defend the

01:06:08

New Testament against his allegations of corruption. Be happy to do so.

01:06:14

Be glad to do so. I think that may have been the very first thing he raised as we started discussing that.

01:06:22

I think the deity of Christ did come up once, but we haven't had the opportunity of doing the corruption thing. The transmission of the text of the

01:06:31

New Testament and Surah 4, verse 157. Those would be the subjects that I would like to tackle.

01:06:38

The reason being, once again, these are the things that our brothers and sisters in other lands would be encountering.

01:06:47

I would want to make sure that we would... This would be something that Mr. Pierce would have to be involved in.

01:06:53

In making sure that in granting both sides the right of distribution of these debates, that likewise there would be the right to have these translated into other languages.

01:07:09

Because I have been gaining more contacts within certain communities which might allow for the translation of said debates into Arabic, for example.

01:07:20

For transmission in Muslim lands as well. Since he would represent the standard in the street kind of argumentation, then providing a full

01:07:35

Christian response would be very encouraging to the Christian people and hopefully likewise cause the

01:07:41

Muslim people to give a second look at what we have to say. I will, of course, be sending the link to this program as soon as we have it posted to Nadir.

01:07:53

We'll see what develops from that. That's the program for today.

01:07:58

Thank you for allowing me to go about 8 minutes along. That was mainly because we sort of stuck another subject in there, but it worked all together.

01:08:06

Thank you for listening to Vagabonding all through 2007. Lord willing, we'll be here in 2008 as well.