Continuation of My Response to Sheikh Awal

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Upcoming Travel, Debates, and Ministry Plans

Hey, good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. The month of May has passed us by 2010 is passing us by as well headed over to the Southern California area briefly this weekend. I'll be speaking at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church on Sunday morning and then Coming pretty much straight back doing a wedding in the afternoon.

Doing a lot of that this weekend. So gonna be busy this weekend and then just a couple weeks and we're headed off to Dearborn. It looks. Keep keep praying. It looks like shake a wall is is back on board with everything.

I I hope that that stays that way. I think it would be the best all around. But looking forward to those debates. Greatly and then July preaching most of July at PR BC gonna be in Hebrews moving into the toughest portion of Hebrews there is.

The meat the biggest challenge is gonna be having to invest a fair amount of time there. And then speaking in New York at the beginning of August and Then at the end of August, I'm gonna be visiting August twice getting it lots and lots of frequent flyer miles and of course, we can still use your help with the hotels and flying and stuff like that and don't don't forget I need to blog on this but One of the big things that I'm aiming for early next year is a Visit to the United Kingdom, which would include Seeing a number of the major papyri In regards to the New Testament every time.

I mean, I was just having correspondence with a Muslim apologist and It is obviously extremely useful to be able to pursue certain. You know the fact that you've examined these things seen those things Is of assistance to your work in those fields and so looking forward to February along that lines.

I hope to have something on the blog eventually about some of the plans We're making for another trip back to the United Kingdom, but today Two things where we get back to our response to shake a wall continue listening to his opening statement.

I was directed to a thread that is developing on the Catholic answers website. About yours truly and that's always fun. It really does provide some insight into the mindset of lay Catholic apologists and to the people who find the continuing Repetition of the same surface level arguments, which is what Catholic answers is.

I'm sorry, but they're saying the same things now. They're saying 20 years going up on one end. That's a good thing. We're saying me the same things we said 20 years ago but we listen to what the other people are saying and we try to improve our presentation and make it deeper and make it more consistent and provide more information and I have lamented many times and pointed to many times the fact that Especially Catholic answers but Catholic apologetics in general just seems to be frozen in time it they they don't seem to care.

What anybody else is saying? They seem to have adopted the idea that if they respond to their critics Then they're giving credibility their critics and since we're the Catholic Church nobody else is credible the anyways see how that works.

And as a result, you know the arguments that you hear now are on the same level That they were 20 30 years ago.

And.

We don't see much in the way of debates going on. I've got three debates this fall with Roberts and Janice, but most of the folks the Catholic answers. Most of the Orthodox Catholics Reject Roberts and Janice as being representative of their positions.

So.

I did here and I almost queued it up, but I Did hear Tim Staples saying he's gonna be doing less traveling so we can do more debates. Well good. Maybe soon. We'll we'll hear from Catholic answers. They're gonna make the purgatory debate available to their people.

They make the stuff with Steve Gregg available That they did on the phone. I don't know why Catholic answers has so far Sought to completely ignore the existence of the debate that Tim Staples and I did on purgatory seems very strange.

Why would that be? But if he's got more time for debates in future, but there's still lots of topics We need to cover and so I'm looking forward to getting that call from Catholic answers maybe to be on the program and stuff like Sorry, couldn't get the other straight face tried but That'd be wonderful and if you know, I've written to Tim he's ignored all my emails ever since the debate it's like I don't exist any longer, but Would love to love to you know schedule another debate in the future and like I said Let's simulcast it or something or we can record on our end.

They can play it over a couple days on their end because they have so much less time than we do. Lots of ways to do this, you know, we'd be very happy to do that, but I was looking through the Messages and you know It seems like they have certain people who automatically come along and they start throwing out the same old tired Stuff, you know, and it's just so predictable.

They don't do any research. They know one almost no. Actually, no one I've seen on that web board has the first interest in trying to be fair unbiased. Unprejudiced nothing. They only get one side. The other side doesn't exist.

There's one guy ink an ear ink an ear who knows how it's pronounced doesn't even have a capital letter in it, but He was blasting away. And one of the things that he that he says is that I.

Make.

My living baiting others and then arranging a debate.

Really.

You sort of wonder. What planet these folks live on? Baiting others and arranging a debate. Hmm. Is that why Catholic answers was the first organization ever contact me and challenge meets debate.

I.

Didn't contact Catholic answers. They contacted me and There are a lot of folks who contact me and say would you be willing to debate such-and-so? Would you be willing to come up and do a conference debate such-and-so etc, etc.

I actually spend very little of my time trying to pursue anybody. People contact me and they'll say, you know What are some of the subjects like to debate. Who who might be a good person to get the debate a subject like this?

We have particular interest in this area. For example the debates with Roberts and Janice.

In.

Santa Fe go back to the fact that the church there said hey, we've got a lot of Roman Catholics in these these areas. We'd like to address these things like to have some debates. Okay, great. Well, here's some possible people they tried getting a hold of Tim Staples.

Tim Staples wouldn't do it and You know, so eventually after a couple years actually now we've arranged things with Roberts and Janice so it's it's funny that baiting and then arranging debate. Then the rest of it says.

He then edits the tape and sells it to his followers or anyone gullible enough to buy one.

Now.

If by edits the tape He means that we take multiple camera angles and put them into one consistent hole then that would be true. I Don't think that's what he's Suggesting. It sounds to me like he's suggesting that we actually edit things out of our tapes, which of course would be utterly foolish.

Suicidal and of course, that's simply slanderous it'd be so easy to prove it and That's why for example in the Ernie Cantor situation. No one's come along even though John Ankerberg unwisely Said that the videos that Mohammed Khan posted had been altered.

What he what of course it meant by that was he slowed them down. So you could hear Ergon? mispronouncing sound as swan that type of thing. But that's why we haven't seen any video produced from anybody where Ergon Cantor is not saying.

It'd be sort of like What we've seen is I was born in Istanbul Turkey and Then the real one comes out and says I was not born in Istanbul Turkey. That's what we would need to say, but we don't see that.

It would be it would be absolutely foolish to engage in a debate provide an unedited master to your opponent and point something else we have provided unedited masters of the debates to my opponents atheists Muslims Roman Catholics Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses Oneness Pentecostals, whatever.

For years.

When I first started doing debates we didn't have video cameras we didn't have anything like that. We we reproduced our cassette tapes on a ghetto blaster at regular speed. Actually, I think with the double speed at the double speed.

Yeah, so it only took you 45 minutes for a single c90. I mean, that's how we did things and Back then When we debate Catholics the Catholics did the recording and they wouldn't give us the tapes. In fact the videotapes of my first two debates Mitch Pacqua languish in a storage room if they haven't been destroyed already and They won't give them to us unless we pay him 5 ,000 bucks and So, you know, we're the ones that provide the unedited masters to both sides and So I would just simply say this particular Individual here who clearly doesn't have Any ability of being unbiased unprejudiced or anything else is just you know.

Just filled with rhetoric and these kind of people are very brave behind keyboards. They'd never call this program. You know, we've how many times we're a guardian when was guardian supposed to call now about four years ago.

I'll be back with that list. Yeah, and that was Catholic answers forums to you know, lots of brave people in there. They won't call this number. They won't talk directly to me no, no, no, no, but That's that's how he's basically explaining, you know, why Scott Hahn won't debate or things like that and I'm sure it's a bit of a problem on their side of the fence, you know I mean their people have got to sit back once while I go.

You know, I've heard this stuff a thousand times now and if we're so right, why aren't we taking these people on? Understand there's got to be people who eventually voice those concerns and ask those questions.

So anyway, but Of course we have our own Algo says guardian was supposed to call two years ago. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Algo would know. Two years you said two years as well. Okay, good.

That's nice.

It.

Seems like four. Yeah. Well, I'm sure it does. He was very zealous. I mean, oh, yeah, I'll be right with you. You know, I'll get that list. I mean, what was it three months? Yeah, I think I think you want three.

I don't think you want 90 days something like that. Three months like that six weeks. I forget what it was. Yeah, never happened. Oh. Most you know of the weekend.

And.

Norman Geisler, the Caner Scandal, and Liberty University

Norman Geisler decided to not comment on the Irving Kanner situation. What I mean by that is yeah, he commented. But did he really say anything? As has been pointed out by more folks than just yourself.

What he said was self-contradictory. It concluded by saying let's wait for Liberty's investigation, but it started off with his proclamation Canada's innocence. It really made me chuckle the first time I read it because it's sort of like it's a completely incoherent.

It made no sense there. They're they're conflicting statements all the way through it and It's just purely an exercise in rhetoric. You know Muslim groups, you know one one Muslim student becomes Muslim groups and other extremists, I guess that's all the rest of us who knows who that is.

And the libel and slander and vicious attacks and it's all just meant to inflame the emotions and It had nothing to do with the actual situation. It was not helpful in any way now. I didn't point this out.

I was aware of this but the picture that I posted sort of helps you to see this anyways, but Norman Geisler is not an unbiased observer in this situation. Most of you know that Norman Geisler left Southern evangelical seminary a couple years ago and clearly there was politics involved and infighting and blah blah blah and Went across the United States and now has founded Veritas Seminary or at least is involved Veritas and I'm not sure if he founded it.

But he's very much involved with the lending his support to him and guess who else Is is a professor for Veritas Seminary? Yes Ergen Kanner professor of Islamic Studies for Veritas Seminary as well, so.

Exactly, you know. An unbiased examination and it does make us wonder. I have to admit I Sure, hope there are people at Liberty With with a with a backbone. Because the facts are really not in dispute.

I mean, let's face it folks. When you have videotape, I mean think of how think of how many big political figures have gone down in flames from a grainy.

Short.

30-second videotape of buying drugs or Accepting money, you know shot through a little you know hole in the wall in a sting operation. That's all it took and.

We have.

Television programs we have entire sermons and Legal documents and from all over the place. It's just like It's it's incredible the amount of information that's there and the the question is not what is going to be.

You know discovered and what you know what the issue is. No, the the question is does Liberty have the guts to do the right thing. And what's concerning me is that you you picked up from Geisler and we picked up from the internal memo that was that was leaked out and From other people's comments that basically it's as ain't no big deal.

This isn't any big deal. You know, okay, let's say he sort of made some stuff up. And he and he did some Pulpiteering and what was it theological leverage? Is that was that term that that towns used was theological average?

You know out in the real world we call that lying but in evangelicalism, it's pulpiteering.

And.

If Liberty accepts that and Goes well, you know, we've asked President Cantor to be a little more Specific in the rendition of his history, but so we don't see any reason to blah blah blah. Well, I know I know a lot of folks won't be going to Liberty anymore, that's for sure.

I know folks teaching at Liberty that that would have a real hard time staying there in light of such things because they actually believe in truth and honesty and integrity and stuff like that, so The worst thing could happen in my opinion would be to try to cover it up to try to just you know Say, ah, it's no big deal.

Something's got to be done. Now. Something could have been done. Eric and Cantor could have stopped all of this in February of this year as Soon as I contacted him and he knew That the jig was up That the information was coming out.

The very fact that in the letter that I sent to him I linked to a video clip from Muhammad Khan would mean obviously that I knew about the other videos as well and That if he did not respond appropriately, we did not give a meaningful answer.

That.

This is going to become public knowledge. And once it was out outside the Muslim community well, there's to be no putting the the top back on that bottle the the genie would be out to use a nice little connection there so anyway That's just how that works, so I the worst thing could happen that try paper this over something's got to happen one way or the other and We will see what what happens.

The Failed Skype Call and Return to Sheikh Awal’s Opening Statement

All right before we go back to shake a wall. We've got a phone call from all the way over in Ireland. Let's talk with Joe. Hi, Joe. Hello, Joe. Hello, Joe. One more time for Joe on Skype. Are you there Joe?

Okay, I'm not hearing anything and Everyone in the in The studio or the control center is looking at me going. Well, it's supposed to be there Joe. Are you there? Alright, no Joe. Okay. All right. We will press forward then with our response to shake a wall we had gotten to we're still in his opening statement here and we actually lost a little portion of My response and so I'm going to sort of back up about one minute so I can have some continuity here.

He starts in on again a standard Akhmed D dot thing In regards to 28 different Bibles. So if we have this set up, what's wrong? Something's wrong this mic that happens on Skype hopefully you have my computer queued up and There we go.

Guess what? That's what happened. I think so. He said that's why you find contradiction today. The question is is the Bible the Word of God? I would have discussed that issue, but this is not the issue I would approve and represent that the Bible have been mutilated mutilated beyond recognition.

Yes, as as I mentioned last time I that that's a topic. I would like to debate. I would prove 100 The Bible has been mutilated beyond recognition. What what an amazing assertion given the Vast superiority of the New Testament manuscript tradition to that of the Quran.

But I am certain that he really does believe that and I I cannot know whether he would be willing to listen to the opposite case. But whether or not they listen or not, we have to be prepared to to offer that opposite case.

I have 28 Bibles in my house. I Have 28 Bibles in my house. None is the same. The line as in none is the same different books. The New Testament version the Revised Standard Version the Mormon version the Lutheran version you think is the same.

It's a holy book, but it is not the same by God.

Now, of course all of those are translations or perversions and the in the in the case of the Mormon version I mean seriously would would shake a wall.

Take.

Some strange Islamic cult group has some prophet that comes along and Says, you know the the Quran's been changed and I'm going to I'm going to restore it. And so he Inserts prophecies about himself into surah 2.

And he changes this and he changes that and he adds this and he adds that. Would shake a wall accept that as having anything to do with with the actual historical accuracy the transmission of the Quran.

Then why even look at Joseph Smith's material? Why even why even quote it? Why even think that it's relevant? It's not relevant. I. Farther after the writing of the New Testament then we can even draw a parallel to for the Quran because it hasn't been enough time yet and.

So if anyone did anything right now to the text of Quran would that actually have anything to do? with what it originally said, of course not. And. Yet there you have that. And of course to compare the NIV and the Revised Standard Version.

English translations. There are many English translations of the Quran. Does that mean the Quran has changed? There there's at least a dozen there's some in modern language. There's some that are sort of free-form paraphrases.

Which would probably get their authors killed in certain countries. But the point is they exist. Does that mean the Quran has been changed?

No.

If you want to what the Quran says you have to look at the Arabic you want to know the Bible says you have to look at the Hebrew and the Greek and. So he's comparing apples and oranges and it should be transparently the case.

It will be in in Detroit, but it should be transparently the case. Now he didn't look happy there. I think he really meant you should be ashamed of yourself. This doesn't have the same Bible. What he means by that not is the text in the sense that Rome uses the UBS any 27 just as Protestants do in general.

But he's referring to The Canon in the issue of the Apocrypha, which of course we've addressed many Many times on this program and in our debates, but that's hopefully what he's referring to there.

So.

I want you to listen keep the emotion to the end. This is a serious issue. My salvation is hung on the cross of Jesus. If my salvation is on his cross Jesus Christ have to make an explicit statement that look I am coming to die for you.

Which he did over and over and over and over again. And I'll try to find this later on if we're still during. It's hard sometimes find things in video during the program but but Jesus makes those explicit statements and When his specific prophecy concerning going to Jerusalem and dying and rising in the third day is brought to him during the The question-answer period that's where we got the well.

You know You have Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexander this and they're written in the 12th century and and in those Matthew only has three chapters and so that wasn't even there utter silliness is Presented that's just not true.

And one of the things I'm gonna need to remember to bring with me When I go up to Detroit is I'm going to Take that text and I'm gonna provide the the scan from Sinaiticus out of that so just to prove that see here it is in Matthew and we can take a look at it and Put up on the screen say now would you care to rephrase your argument at that point?

Such a statement it was written about him more than 300 years after him. Who wrote the book of Matthew? You ask him. You say Matthew wrote it. Matthew did not know the book of Matthew which you quoted from.

How do I know the book of Matthew chapter 9 verse 9? Listen to what happened. It says. While he Jesus was going out on the way He saw a man sitting on a task on a test table and Jesus said follow him and Matthew rose and followed him.

Did Matthew wrote this book? Matthew did not write this book someone else was writing. If Matthew wrote it it would have been. While Jesus Christ was walking on the way He saw me sitting down and he said follow me and I wrote and follow him, but this one.

Somebody else is writing these books.

Now as I look at him, he really thinks this is an unanswerable statement. He really thinks that no author of antiquity.

Ever.

Narrated any event. Especially he's talking about somebody else in the third person that every author of antiquity would have to have gone to first person. He saw me and he called me. Even if he was keeping himself out of it, which oh, wait a minute Matthew's a pseudonymous work.

There's there's no I'm sorry, not pseudonymous work. Matthew is an anonymous work there. There's no name attached at all. So why would he if he doesn't insert his name? Switch to the first person. In fact, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Does it and yet shake a wall really thinks it's an unanswerable question unanswerable argument. Which again demonstrates that. This is not true 100 of time but in my experience is true ninety nine point nine eight percent of time and that is.

Right outside that door around the corner is an entire shelf filled with Islamic books written by Islamic authors. Some of the sets were multiple hundreds of dollars. Once that was about six about six hundred dollars, I recall just for the set.

This is their writings Tafsir literature commentary literature. We look at Ibn Kathir. We look at occurred to be we look at the hadith. We we look at the that material. Before we make arguments in regards to certain texts, for example extremely important text or a 6 -101 Says that that God cannot have a son because he does not have a unless he has a Sabiha a mate a consort.

Well.

Before I ever brought that up in public. I took the time to get out the look at the B I looked at at Ibn Kathir. I looked the text up. I want to know What the classical Islamic sources say about these particular texts?

I don't find Muslims to do that. They just don't they just read the Bible and there are shelves of incredible commentaries. Consistent in-depth. Historical exegetical commentaries on the Bible. Do they look at them?

Well, the ones who do are looking for things to just you know, try to shred it. They they much prefer the liberals who don't believe in the text they don't really bother reading the commentaries by people who do believe in the text, which I find extremely inconsistent and And rather sad, but that's that's the way that it is.

So This is not much of an argument. First of all, Matthew doesn't have a name attached to it. So it's not a hill to die on. But even beyond that. This does this mean that this somehow is you know. That means it's much later removed and blah blah blah no in in no way shape or form.

But he looks very pleased with that particular argument and where to come from. It came from Akhmed. Now he's sitting there saying keep your emotions down but he's raising the emotions he's just said shame on you.

He says bring your your your guru your pastor your big guy next time. I feel like I'm fighting with a kid. So he's one raising the raising the emotions here while telling other people to keep that down.

I'm not not sure. That's really the way to go.

Talk about the issue the issue is salvation through Jesus through the Bible or through the Quran and you've never talked this subjects. All you do is to will go to some Baha 'i somewhere, you know some books.

Talk to me about salvation. But I'm giving you quotation. I'm proving from your book that Christ did not die on the cross and the evidence is so clear. But the books as it is is being changed. Where in the book of Jeremiah chapter 8 verse 8 It says do you think that we have the law of Moses in our hand?

No, the pen of those who write the Bible have turned it into a lie. I didn't say now that one.

Jeremiah Chapter 8 it'd be good if we if we took a look at that one sometimes. Someday we're gonna have a full Scripture index to all of the videos on YouTube someday. We really need it. Because I have addressed this in the videos on YouTube and I did so because this is a very common text used By Islamic apologists to try to say that the Bible itself says it's been corrupted.

Now, this is an abuse of Jeremiah. It is a contextual but It's there. So let's let's and remember. Shake a wall quotes Bible verses, but he doesn't quote them accurately. He may not know it. I'm not accusing him of purposeful dishonesty on the matter.

But he very frequently does not quote them accurately. Just as Dave Hunt can't seem to quote Matthew 23 37 correctly. In the same way shake of all has problems. Many of the texts that he that he quotes as well.

How can you say? Jeremiah 8 8 says how can you say we are wise and the law of Yahweh is with us? But behold the lying pen of the Scribes has made it into a lie.

Now.

The reading that the Muslim uses at this point is to say that when the Scribes.

Say.

We are wise. The law of Yahweh is with us. When it says the lying pen the Scribes has made into a lie. What he's saying is that they've actually perverted or changed the Word of God. Rather than accusation that it is the Scribes who are lying not the Word of God has been changed.

But when you continue reading the text and by the way, Sam Shimon has addressed this as well. It has some material in this if you want to take a look at in more more depth. But notice what it goes on to said say the wise men shall we put the shame?

They shall be dismayed and taken. Behold, they have.

Rejected.

The Word of Yahweh. So what wisdom is in them. Not they've perverted not they've changed not they destroyed. They have rejected The Word of Yahweh. What was the Word of Yahweh? Well, Jeremiah was bringing a message of destruction.

That.

The religious leaders in Jerusalem were deceiving the people when they're saying peace peace and there is no peace and So it says that they have rejected The Word of the Lord. Therefore I will give their wives to others in their fields to conquerors because in the least of the greatest.

Everyone is greedy for unjust gain from prophet to priest everyone deals falsely lying The lying pens of the Scribes. They're the ones that write now here Prophets they deal falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly saying peace peace when there is no peace.

Were they ashamed with them when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed. They did not know how to blush therefore. They shall fall among the fallen when I punish them. They shall be overthrown Says Yahweh.

When I would gather them declares Yahweh. There are no grapes in the vine nor figs in the fig tree even leaves are withered and what I gave them has passed away. Why do we sit still gather together? Let us go into the fortified cities and perish there for the Lord Our God has doomed us to perish and has given us poison water drink because we have sinned against the Lord.

We look for peace, but no good came for a time of healing to behold terror, and so he is bringing a a message of judgment upon the people but Jeremiah will go on and Repeatedly hold the people accountable to the very Word of the Lord, which would be impossible If the interpretation they are giving of Jeremiah 8 8 is The correct interpretation which of course it is not.

This way through your book Jeremiah to the ageless it I repeat Jeremiah 24 24. Jeremiah 8 8. The new the national version said think not that we have the law of Moses and the prophet in our hands still.

Behold the pen of the scrap have turned the Bible in vain.

That's not what it says. That's that's just not what it says. Jeremiah he said Jeremiah 2410 and I will send sword famine and pestilence upon them until they shall be utterly destroyed in the land. That I gave to their fathers was it Jeremiah 24 10.

Is that what he said? It's not like it. Maybe it's maybe it's 24 24. There is no 24 24, there's only 24 10. Hmm well a hard hard to respond one when there is no 24 24. The only way I could find that out is to see if I can back it up a little bit here.

Let's see if I got far enough. Back says. Do you think that we have the law of Moses in our hand? No, the pen of those who write the Bible have turned it into a lie. I didn't say this way through your book.

I.

Repeat Jeremiah 24 24.

That he said Jeremiah 24 24, there's only 10 verses in Jeremiah 24. So I. Again, you know, it's very impressive to an audience. Do anything by memory if your memory is good. But this simply isn't what either Jeremiah 8 or Jeremiah 24 actually said.

Version said think not that we have the law of Moses and the prophet in our hands still. Behold the pen of the scrub have turned the Bible in vain. That's just not what Jeremiah says. That's not even close to a Jeremiah says.

So we have a need to check citations and check them quickly during debates to be sure.

They turn it in vain and the Quran confirmed. For Women, I give him some money. I mean in the law yesterday. Someone I didn't. Walk to those who write the books with their own hand and then they say it's from Allah so that they will sell it and There's some benefit out of it.

What to the hand that write it and what to the benefit they make out of it. Bus.

But that's not the application the Quran actually makes in that text to the Torah or the Angel. In fact, if you're an interpret that text that way then the entire argument for the Prophet of Muhammad in surah 5 beginning about 45 is turned on its head.

So it sounds real good. But in my experience most Muslims just don't actually Interpret the Quran In any consistent fashion. They just use it as a textbook as a as a book filled with different texts that they can use in their own way.

So the issue at hand is a big one. The issue at hand it is not an easy it is about salvation. But I'm giving you Matthew chapter 5 verse 7 where Jesus said do not think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses.

And the other prophets. No, I've not come to destroy. I've come to fulfill.

And we point out that that has nothing to do with Jesus's death because it is Jesus's death that actually fulfills The prophecies of the law and the prophets and fulfills the law itself. So only by misrepresenting what the author is themselves intended in those texts.

Can you make that kind of argument?

So Jeremiah said the father Shall not bear the iniquity of the son Nor the son bear the iniquity of the father.

The book of Ezekiel chapter 8 and the reason for the citation of this is what? I mean, that's not even a meaningful interpret that no interpretation was given. I guess you're throwing it out there to try to hope that people interpret it in a way that's amenable to your position, but.

Try providing some contextual exegesis, okay, what does that mean? What did it mean in the days of Jeremiah? What was the proverb about? The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth have been set on edge.