October 11, 2005

The Dividing Line Opens With Technical Problems and the Plan for a Debate Review

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on this Tuesday morning. It looks like a number of folks are having connection problems. Looks like everyone is having connection problems, but we hope to return.

It worked fine for 30 minutes. You know and That's electronic equipment how it works I used to run the sound at a big huge Southern Baptist Church and you could check the sound you could check the sound and you could check the sound and it would always work up until the time the Deacons walked in and the service started and then Something would happen.

That's just that's just electronic equipment. That's all there is. So anyways, we press on because obviously we record all of this make it available on archive and For that matter today We are going to begin a series where we're going to be reviewing listening to and reviewing a debate that took place in 2000 Between Sam Shamoon.

Sam's a good friend of the ministry. He was on one of our cruises the one After the Stafford debate was very helpful an expert on Islam. He truly is he knows his stuff he's one of the main folks who contributes to answering Islam org and He debated Shabbir Ali now Shabbir is a an up-and-comer he is one of the most Prolific of the Islamic apologists today.

I have been downloading for quite some time now various of his debates online resources and I must admit listening to Those debates made me very Upset simply because the people that he would debate would not come after him.

He they simply would not debate him the way that his statements demand that he be debated. He makes very strong statements even if he makes them in a somewhat gentle manner the statements that he makes are exceptionally strong and Exceptionally subject to refutation by someone who basically has the guts to stand up and say no, that's wrong.

And here's why and one thing I certainly learned to listen to those theological liberals have no reason to debate and really shouldn't be debating anyways and So it's been frustrating to listen to these debates knowing That very strong answers Could be could be provided.

Shabbir Ali as we were here relies very heavily upon liberal Christian theologians his favorite person to quote is Raymond Brown but at many other times he is quoting from the Jesus seminar and John Dominic Crossan and so on so forth and So having debated John Dominic Rossin and those things it's it was actually somewhat difficult for me to listen To some of these debates and then I listened as our good friend Sam Shamoon debated.

And it was being done the way that it needs to be done, and I was exceptionally happy about that. So we are going to share with you The debate now the first section is Sam's presentation the first 20 minutes or so so I'm not going to be interrupting that I'm going to let that go In its full course and then once Ali begins Shabbir Ali begins, then I will be doing with his presentation what We do and we review anything on the On the dividing line we review sermons and review Catholic answers materials and Mormon materials, whatever it might be we start and stop when someone makes a statement, then we stop we comment on it and move on and Of course obviously in a context of a debate many of these things I'm sure Sam would have liked to have responded to at that point in time, but as he Understands having engaged in this debate when the other guy had 20 minutes, and you have 10 minutes.

It takes more time to respond to an error than it does to enunciate an error and hence when you have half that amount of time You have to pick and choose you have to Look at what has been said and you have to look at your audience.

And you have to look at what you're trying to accomplish and go all right. These are the most important things were said and you know in the back of your mind Someone's gonna say well you didn't respond to this and you didn't respond to that well You can't especially when someone starts using a scattergun approach.

You simply cannot respond to everything there is to respond to it is simply not a possibility. And so at least in this format I will have the opportunity To respond to each of the things that should be early says and then of course we'll be listening to Sam as well.

And it's encouraging to listen to Sam's response. And it sounds like it would have been a fascinating thing to observe because it sounds like the audience is really up close and personal and So it must have been must have been quite the interesting experience to be able to Have been there and to have experienced that so I I I Wish there had been maybe a video recording.

Maybe there is I haven't even asked I maybe maybe there is a video recording. I don't know, but yeah as it may let's go ahead and begin listening to this opening statement now. You might want to be taking some notes.

Sam throws a lot of stuff out here. He takes an interesting approach here. This is on the subject of the Bible in the Quran and He's basically and this is an important point to raise. This is a this is an issue that I've run into in with some Islamic apologists as well and that is their constant assertion that the Bible has been corrupted the Bible has been changed and Sam has some some real challenges.

And and I I think you really need to listen carefully here. Because the fact that once you get into the cross-examination period and and the rebuttal periods I don't hear any meaningful response to most of what Sam said in this portion by Shabir Ali he Really in my opinion Utilizes the let's throw out a bunch of other stuff.

That is going to help our my followers to get excited and Hopefully not recognize that I'm not responding to what this man said he seemed to have been really taken aback by that so Let's let's start off here and listen as Sam Shamoon Opens the debate.

Sam Shamoon’s Opening Case for the Bible and the Quran

And I will seek to improve that point tonight. Interestingly the criteria that Shabir Ali often uses in his debates against the authenticity of the Gospels As well as the entire Bible can be used against the Quran even more.

Forcefully which I will also demonstrate God willing tonight to appeal to what Shabir Ali considers of information. So much so that today he's debating the fact that this source is the Word of God namely the Quran.

To me the Quran represents the thoughts and ideas of the first Muslims their views on different areas of life specifically the holy scriptures the Bible. I Will close the Quran to establish one that the Bible is the uncrushed pure word of God.

I've heard passages that Shabir Ali often presents in his dialogues debates and writings to try to give the impression. That the Quran denies that the Bible in our possession today is the uncrushed pure word of God.

Instead of the Chinese comment. I will just quote one passage that he often presents against the vaders and his writings. Chapter 2 verse 79 of the Quran he quotes this and this is the portion that he quotes, but he leaves out verse 78.

Let me go to the portion that he quotes. Woe be unto those who write scripture with their hands and then say this is from Allah. That they may purchase a small game therewith. Woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto them for what they earn thereby.

Now when you pull this passage out of its context it gives the impression that the Quran is affirming that the Jews and Christians falsified scripture and claimed it was from God. But when you read the verse before it that interpretation states.

Now let me read it in context chapter 2 verse 78 to 79. Among them are a letter spoke the Arabic word that Shabir can correct me is only known scripture not except from hearsay. Yes. This is the context of the passage it is not referring to the Jews and Christians as a whole.

Corrupting and falsifying revelation in actuality is speaking of one letter Ignorant amongst the people who did not know the scripture. If they did not know the scripture How could they corrupt it? So this verse would not support Bible corruption.

With that said let me go into the positive case that the Quran presents that the Bible in my possession as Muhammad knew it is the uncorrupt word of God. Basically what this will do is anytime Shabir then decides to attack the Bible he debuffs the testimony of the Quran and therefore Can no longer be a Muslim.

Let me go. The first verse is chapter 15 verse 9 of the Quran. It says this well sent down the message in Arabic this law and We will assure we got it from corruption. Now interestingly Most Muslims feel that this verse is referring to the protection of the Quran and in its immediate Context it is referring to the Quran.

I have no arguments with that. But even more interesting is the fact that the very Quran also calls the Bible the reminder the message that God Let me quote those references chapter 16 verse 43 and Before thee we said son, but then to whom we granted inspiration.

If you realize this not ask those who possess the reminder that God the message referring to the book in the possession of the Jews and Christians. Chapter 21 verse 7 of the Quran says the same thing Before thee also the messengers we sent were but men to whom we granted inspiration.

If you know this not ask of those who possess Presidents the reminder again chapter 41 verse 48 in The past we granted to Moses and Aaron the criterium and for time For judgment and the life and a reminder that God for those who do right.

21 verse 12 5 before this we wrote in the Psalms After the reminder that God my service the righteous shall inherit the earth. Final reference to the fact that the scripture before The time of Muhammad was called the reminder is chapter 40 verse 53 to 54 we did after time give Moses the guidance and we gave the book and inheritance to the children of Israel a Guide and a reminder that God to man understanding.

Now the question I pose to show here is simply this. If God is consistent and he has sworn that he will protect the reminder and this Reminder includes previous scripture. How can you even assume the Bible's been corrupt?

And if he tells me the Quran says the Bible's been corrupt I asked him to give me one verse that says the text of scripture has been corrupted. Just one saying those words. He will not find it and if he decides to put chapter 5 was 48 or so on and so forth I'm prepared to respond in the rebuttal period.

Other passages that show that the Bible is the uncorrupt pure word of God after two verse 113. The Jews say the Christians are not fathered by anything and the Christians say the Jews are not fathered upon anything and yet They read the book.

Now the question is what book is the cross speaking of? It's that same book that the cross has just testified in the reminder sent down by Allah and he would preserve it. Showing that the Bible is the uncorrupt pure word of God chapter 3 verse 3 of the cross.

He has revealed to you the book with the truth confirming the scriptures which preceded it for his already revealed the Torah and the gospel for the guidance of mankind and the Distinction of right and wrong now Shamir has an Arabic English dictionary.

I asked him to look up the word confirm set up and tell us what does it mean? This is the definition of the term. It means to give credence. To believe to accept as true confirming accepting as true believe confirming.

Establishing as true. So the function of the crowd wasn't exposed corruption to the text. It was to confirm its authority as truth from God preserved by God Almighty. There is no such teaching as Bible corruption.

That's a Muslim men in order to avoid the consequences of affirming that the Bible is the word of God because to do so refused the Quran chapter 7 verse 156 to 157. And I will write down my mercy for those who are righteous and give all and who believe in our side.

Who follows the apostle the unlettered prophet whom they find written in the Torah and the gospel that is with them. Now according to Shabir's arguments in his research papers as well as debates and lectures.

The Torah and the gospel are no longer in its pristine form. What we find today is the word of man. If that's the case Why does Allah say the Torah and the gospel is with you? Why doesn't he say you have it in part, but you corrupted the rest?

Is Allah deceiving the Christians and the Jews? Please answer that question. 3 6 of the Quran says Nay, he is not acquainted with what is in the books of Moses and again if Muhammad was not familiar with the books of Moses this presumes that the books of Moses was available in the time of Muhammad.

No statement of corruption or embellishment. The Quran doesn't say well because Moses wrote his own history in Quran 34 it can't be the word of God. It doesn't say this and an all-knowing God should know to provide this information in order To protect from Christians like me using it as a basis to prove that Bible is the uncorrupted word of God.

Chapter 5 verses 46 to 47 and we call Jesus son of Mary to follow in their footsteps. Confirming, say Mary big words, that which was revealed before him in the Torah. Let me pause here briefly. We know what the Torah in the time of Jesus was like.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Septuagint. Irrespective of variant readings and I will get to the very readings of the Quran and show that the Quran itself is not a perfectly preserved book according to Islamic sources.

So we definitely know what the Torah in the time of Jesus looked like that he confirmed. And it's identical to the Torah that is in my Bible today showing that this is the word of God. Let me continue.

The word of God gives the gospel wherein its guidance and life confirming that which was revealed before in the Torah a guidance and admonition unto those who were of evil and Let the people of the gospel Judge by what God has revealed in it.

Here's my question. If the gospel no longer existed in the time of Muhammad how could we judge by it? And what was that gospel? Now I've heard arguments say well here the concept of gospel is in the singular.

Therefore it's not speaking of the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately for the Muslims who present this argument this will not work simply for the fact that even Muslim scholars such as Al-Zamakshari and Baidawi admit that the word injeel is not an original Arabic term.

It's a loan word from the Syriac which means we must go back to the Syriac Christians and see what the gospel was to them. When we look at the history of the church beginning at the second century the four full gospel accounts were called the gospel of Christ not the Gospels of Christ.

That's why the singular. So he says it's a singular that won't do it chapter 5 verse 68 of the Quran. Say O people of the book, you are not founded on anything until you perform the Torah and the gospel and what was revealed to you from your Lord.

How could they perform the Torah and the gospel if it was corrupt? Does it make sense? I also hear Muslims say produce a surah like the Quran. If you believe the Torah is not from God. But what the oath mention is the Quran also challenges unbelievers to not only produce a surah like the Quran.

But to produce a book like the Torah and the Quran. Let me read it to you chapter 28 verse 48 to verse 49. But when the truth has come to them from us, they say why is he not given the life of what was given to Moses?

Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They say two kinds of magic Torah and the Quran each helping the other and they say barely in both. We are disbelievers. Say to them O Muhammad then bring a book from Allah, which is the better guide than these two.

The Torah and the Quran that I may follow it if you are truthful again. Why would Allah say produce a book like the Torah if the Torah was corrupted in the time of Muhammad? Here's the response. When we go to the Islamic traditions, what was Muhammad's view of the scriptures available in his time?

Let me quote the life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, page 268. Rafi bin Haritha and Salam bin Mishkam and Malik bin Al-Sayyid and Rafi bin Mughaymullah. Excuse me. I have a hard time speaking English as an American, so I do apologize.

Came to him the Prophet of Islam and said do you not know that you follow the Rituals of Abraham and believe in the Torah. Which we have and testify that is the truth from God. He replied certainly. He doesn't say wait wait wait, you have embellished the rest of it.

He said that is the point to amid us of the Jews. He asked for the Torah and showed it enough respect that he placed it on a pillow and he says I believe. Indeed and is the one who revealed it. If the Torah was corrupt How could he bear witness to a corrupt scripture.

I'd like the answer for that one. There's more to come in the rebuttal period. Now what about Shabir's methodology against the Bible that the Bible has great readings and transcriptional errors and alleged discrepancies.

What I'm going to do with the remainder of time, which I only have five minutes by the way, time really goes fast when you speak. What I'm going to do with the remainder of my time, I'm going to take Islamic sources to show that Muslims admit that the Torah Suffers corruption and is not in its pristine form.

No matter what they say, Memorization preserved the Torah allegedly. According to these sources, they did not. Let me quote one. This is in Abu Dawood's book, Kitab. The passages of the Quran that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yaran.

But they were not known by those who survived them. They were not known. They were written down. They were not written down. Umar or Uthman by that time collected the Quran. Nor were they found with even one person after them.

Here is an Islamic source. Whether Shabir considers it reliable or not is a new point. The fact is, it is the Muslims admitting that passages of the Quran that certain people memorized. Went with them when they died and no one else knew these verses.

I'd like Shabir to comment on that. Ibn Umar. Saying it is reported from Ismail Ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar who said Let none of you say I have acquired the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran has disappeared.

Acquired what has survived. Sources that are actually missing from the present text of the Quran. And I have a feeling when Muslims bring this up, they'll often ask me which Bible do you believe in? The Catholic Bible 73 books or the Protestant of 66?

Well now I'm going to ask Shabir, which Quran do you believe is the canon of Allah? The 116 of Ubaid Ibn Ka 'b and Ibn Abbas or the 111 of Abdullah Ibn Masud? Or the 114 that you have and that you claim is the word of God?

And if you say it's the 114, produce one verse in the Quran that says 114 chapters is the canon of Allah. Show that to me please. Here are the two surahs of Ubaid Ibn Ka 'b that are no longer in the text of the Quran.

And Ubaid Ibn Ka 'b was called the master of the Quranic reciters, one of the top memorizers. And he believed these were part of the book of Allah. Let me quote them and I guess my time is over. Surah Al-Ghafid.

You alone we worship and to you alone we pray and lie prostrate and to you alone we proceed and have descendants. We fear your torture and hope for your mercy, truly your torture will overtake the infidels.

The second one, Surah Al-Ghaf. O Allah, you alone we ask for help and forgiveness, we speak appreciatingly of your goodness. Never do we disbelieve you, we repudiate and disbelieve anyone who follows immorality.

With that said, I end this part of my discussion and I leave Shabib with the following question. If you go and attack the Bible for variant readings, we'll have a field day with the Quran and its thousands of variants.

In fact, here's Arthur Jeffrey's book and the thousands of variants of the Quran. If you tell me there are contradictions in the Bible, we'll have a field day with the contradictions in the Quran. With one exception, I will quote the Sunnah and Muhammad's interpretation of the Quran which forces the contradiction.

So you can try to reconcile the passages, that's your private interpretation. You are not the Prophet of Islam and you must follow the Sunnah being a Sunni Muslim. So we will see what happens from here.

Thank you for your patience.

And there we go. And so you have the opening presentation from Sam Shamoon on the subject of the Bible and the Quran. And like I said, it certainly sounds to me like the audience is... I don't think there is a whole lot of room between the front row and the debaters there.

At least that's how it sounds here and there. There was a microphone in the audience or something like that. So now, Shabir Ali takes up the challenge and we will be stopping and starting as statements are made.

Responding to things, obviously. At the beginning, probably not stopping as often as we will later on, of course. But here is Shabir Ali.

Shabir Ali’s Opening Defense of the Quran and the Meaning of “Torah” and “Gospel”

I begin by praising the Creator of the heavens and the earth. And ask Him to send His blessings upon all His prophets. And in particular, upon the last of all His prophets Who He sent with a message for all the world.

What is happening here tonight is a kind of dichotomy, I see. And there is a separation between two groups here in the audience. Who will cheer when one speaker speaks and the other group will cheer when the other speaker speaks.

It is a kind of more rational, academic approach to this discussion. Where we think about the points being raised and we find out whether or not these points have any validity to them. We look to the reasons that are being offered for various claims.

And we think about ways in which we might explore these questions a little bit further. But on the side, I do not think that the issue we are discussing tonight will be settled in one night. I think that all we can do, Sam and I, is to stimulate your interest in studying the issue a little bit further.

Now, to the issue itself. The Quran or the Bible, which is the word of God? Muslims claim it is the Quran, and Christians claim that it is the Bible. However, Muslims do not claim that the Quran, that the Bible is not the word of God.

Muslims, in fact, would insist that the Bible does contain revelation from God. And for this reason, Muslims are not surprised to find that there are many passages in the Quran. And there are many references from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

That speak very favorably about the Bible. Now, often people will say, well look, this speaks so favorably. That means that the Quran affirms and agrees with everything that the Bible says. But one has to see how words are being used.

Not only in the Quran, but in any other context. A word might have a variety of meanings. When the Quran speaks, for example, about the Torah. Well, the Torah and the Gospels have changed over time. So when we refer to the Torah and the Gospels.

One has to find out what context is being referred to. To find out what exactly is meant by the Torah or the Gospels. So, I always find it surprising that Christians try to persuade Muslims. That the Torah and the Gospels have never been changed.

Whereas Christians know themselves that the Torah and the Gospels have been changed.

Textual Variation, Mark 16, and the Limits of the Bible-Changing Argument

The changing of the Torah and the Gospels. And as Shabir Ali has already said You need to understand what those terms are referring to. If we are talking about a Gospel Are we talking about Mark? Are we talking about Matthew?

Later he's going to bring up the textual variant, for example, in Mark chapter 16. Are we talking about the Gospel message itself? There's a difference between those types of terms. And so, there's going to be some confusion, I think.

And there's certainly a lack of clarity on Shabir Ali's part As to what he's addressing. And certainly a lack of clarity in his understanding of textual critical issues. And the uses of such terms as corruption, change, etc.

And so, what was just said was Christians know that the Gospel and the Torah have been changed. If what he means by that is that there is textual variation. In handwritten manuscripts, that's a given.

It's also a given in regards to the pre-Othmanian Quranic manuscripts themselves. So, that's not even an issue. But what most people hear, of course Is when you're talking about changing Gospels. The term change normally carries with it.

The idea of a purposeful change. That's not differentiating between purposeful emendations. Made, for example, by Uthman. And scribal errors, homo etelyatan, for example. Similar endings, if you've seen the series we've been doing In response to Seifullin Azmi's commentary.

Quoting from Bentley on the Sinaiticus. We've talked about what homo etelyatan is. And various and sundry scribal errors that can be made. That are not at all purposeful. Those things have to be differentiated.

If, in any way, shape or form You're going to have a meaningful discussion About the textual accuracy and transmission Of any text that is transmitted. And y 'all notice something I don't know about you.

But as I was listening to the discussion of Well, you know, the Quran says things favorably About the Torah and things like that. But that doesn't necessarily mean this. I could not help but think of another group That has their own book of scripture.

That speaks very much in the same way. That's the Mormons. That may not have struck you. But it struck me when you listen Especially to Mormon apologists today. As they speak about the text of the scriptures.

And what Mormonism has said over the history of its existence In regards to the Book of Mormon, the Bible. The superiority of the Book of Mormon Its transmission, its prophetic nature, etc. So it was interesting to me to catch that.

So we continue now with Shabir Ali. Now what he said there is. If you're looking at the NIV It has textual footnotes. Well, okay, that means there's textual variation. So what? If we had the pre-Uthmanian collections of the Quran We would have the same thing.

We would have the exact same phenomena taking place there. And one of the things, one of the greatest weaknesses In Shabir Ali's apologetic attack upon the Christian faith. And it is an attack upon the Christian faith.

Let's try to be honest here Shabir Ali attacks the Christian faith. He may be nice about it. He may smile while he's doing it. That doesn't change the fact. It is an attack upon the Christian faith. An attack upon the Christian scriptures.

And to be fair You're going to have to use the same standards That you use for your own scriptures To apply them to the Bible. And the fact of the matter is The Muslim struggles at that point Because of what's called the Uthmanian revision.

The gathering up of the written manuscripts That had come into existence at that early period of time By Uthman. The revision that takes place The destruction of those others. We know that there are some he missed Which is an important issue.

The Sa 'ana Quranic manuscripts for example Which do demonstrate variations. And from the Christian perspective What you do. Is you want all that information. As you do more and more study. More and more of that information Only verifies and clarifies for you.

The text of the New Testament itself. That's not how Muslims Approach the subject of the Quran. That's not how they view the subject Of the textual examination of the Quran. And in fact If you were to go over to most Islamic nations And say I'm looking for Pre-Uthmanian manuscripts of the Quran.

Because I want to do a study Of the changes in the text of the Quran. There are many places you would not get out of alive. That is a major difference In the viewpoint between Christianity and Islam In regards to the historical transmission Of our scriptures.

Remember the Quran is much younger By more than A factor of one quarter. Much younger than the New Testament text. Let alone the text of the Old Testament. So there is a major difference At that particular point in time.

So looking at NIV footnotes And saying well There is a textual variant here. And saying oh we'll see the Bible has been changed Not quite saying the same things. That's not an overly impressive approach already.

And so where do we immediately go?

You go to the largest textual variation In the entire New Testament The longer, medium and shorter endings Of Mark chapter 16 Issue that we've addressed many times. The King James only controversy Has an entire section on the subject of this.

So all we're doing right now Is not proving anything relevant at all. What I mean by that Is that Sam has already pointed out What the Quran's testimony is here. This certainly isn't relevant to the Torah In any way shape or form.

But he's already pointed out what the Quran says. And so now all we're proving is What everybody knows. And that is there is textual variation And that we have this massive manuscript Tradition that allows us to examine The textual variants as they exist And to understand what is behind Those textual variations Which again the Muslim does not have For his own book which is even younger.

We're proving something that isn't even At the point here Unless you can then go beyond that to prove And the purposes here. And remember Shabir Ali is going to be using Very much a perspective that embraces Redaction criticism in regards to the New Testament.

He I don't believe would do that in regards to the Quran In any way shape or form. Again one of those inconsistencies In the utilization of sources And not using the same standards. But he's going to do that.

And he's going to try to tie these together. Textual variation and redaction criticism Are two very different things. There are some people even amongst Christians Who try to tie them together. But in reality at least with the one You have manuscripts you can deal with.

You have factual data that you can examine Over against the redaction theory Where you say well you've got Mark And he's being used by Matthew and Luke. And so if there's differences here Then there's changes here.

And when you try to put all that together Which Ali does You create tremendous confusion Which is simply in any way shape or form Dishonest to the facts themselves And does not actually promote to truth In any way shape or form.

Those who are versed in science as well You'll see that that whole section that Mark talks of Later addition into the Bible Is not an original part of Mark's gospel. Now what happens to the original text of Mark's gospel?

How does this really end? Nobody knows for sure. The interpreter is one volume commentary on the Bible.

Now notice the sources here. Interpreter is one volume commentary. If you've not heard of it It is well to the left of center. He's going to be quoting from people like Raymond Brown I haven't heard him at least in this debate Specifically citing someone like a John Dominic Crossan.

But the terminology he uses is identical at times. And so I'm sure he's very very familiar with everything. So here you see folks It's the self-destructive nature of theological liberalism. And the fact that this has become So much of a prevalent perspective In so many theological seminaries today.

That's why I've said many many times I view it as a part of the very judgment of God Upon a nation and upon a church That has been discontent with Christ's truth. Here you see it being used By those that we would be clearly recognizing As the enemies of the faith By a completely different religion.

We're not even talking about cults here In the sense of Mormonism trying to carve out its niche. Here we have Islam itself. And we have the utilization of this material. And so if you've already. And that's one of the problems of some of the people That Shabir Ali has debated.

They're already compromised in that. They have accepted the conclusions Of the quote unquote academy. They're no longer defending things like The doctrine of inerrancy. They've bought into what the academy has to say.

And quite honestly the academy cannot provide A meaningful apologetic For anything but the least common denominator Viewpoint of Christianity Which isn't what Islam is concerned about. Islam doesn't have to worry about Liberal Christianity.

Because liberal Christianity can't do anything about Islam. It can't do anything about Islamic expansion. And it doesn't have a message That's going to change the heart of a Muslim. And when they don't have the gospel anymore It doesn't matter.

And so that's why these issues are important. They're all connected together. Sometimes you might look at the blog. You might see what Alpha Omega Ministries does. And you see it's talking about Mormonism over here.

And the Jehovah's Witnesses over here. And textual criticism over here. And the Jihad Seminar over there. And it looks very scattered. But in reality what ties all that together. Is a general biblical apologetic To the Christian faith.

And as I've said many times before I mean this Direct connection here for example To the Da Vinci Code coming out Very direct connection itself Very same kind of argumentation Not nearly as erudite But very same kind of argumentation That is being utilized.

And we're going to have to respond to that. Christians no longer have the option To be ignorant Of issues like textual criticism. I'm sorry you can't do it anymore. When U .S. News And World Report Is putting on it's front cover The conclusions of people like the Jesus Seminar You cannot any longer Basically stick your head in the sand And ignore these things.

You have to do the work. You have to take the time To learn these things and be ready To give an answer. So that's where we are Offers a few suggestions.

And among them is a suggestion That what was there was not palatable To the early Christians. And somebody deliberately tore it up And then in his plea. Other writers wrote some a short ending Some a long ending And some copied both endings into the one volume.