Response to Zakir Naik on the Deen Show Pt. 3

This is the third video of three videos where I'm responding to the appearance of Dr.

Zakir Naik on The Dean Show, and it was an episode that was basically directed at denying the central assertions of the

Christian faith in regards to the person of Jesus Christ. We have responded to the biblical references that were raised by Dr.

Naik and have demonstrated that any meaningful exegesis of those texts where you are seriously attempting to honestly deal with what the text is actually talking about does not substantiate

Dr. Naik's usage. In this last video, there is a brief clip that I'll play for you where Dr.

Naik goes through a number of texts that he is asserting prophesy or make reference to Muhammad in the

Old and New Testaments. I was going to go through each one in this video, but I think what would be better is

I started thinking about it, and I started thinking about the debate that took place almost exactly one year ago now in London between myself and Shabir Ali on this very topic.

Now, as I mentioned, Shabir Ali, I think, presents a more nuanced and more scholarly presentation, and so I had to deal with his utilization of liberal

Christian scholarship and Raymond Brown and things like that, but I do deal with, for example, the

Song of Solomon section, certainly the Periclete section, and so I thought, well, why not just use what

I presented there? Now, we, a year later, are still struggling to get hold of the videotapes of that particular debate.

Hopefully, we will have them soon, but I did have a small camera with me that I recorded that debate with.

The video is not very good, so I thought what I would do is I would extract the audio of my opening statement and then put that under the slides that I was actually projecting on the screen behind me, which you wouldn't be able to see in the video one way or the other.

That way, you can see exactly what the audience was seeing, and so what I'll do in this video then is

I will give you Zakir Naik's clip, the brief, I think it's less than 30 seconds, where he rips off all these texts, and then what a scholarly debate is like when you deal with these issues and you examine the claims that are being made in regards to Muhammad in the

Old and New Testaments, and I hope that the difference between rapid -fire proof texting and actually dealing with the text and looking for substantiation from a scholarly perspective will be very, very clear.

I am thankful to those, by the way, who have forwarded contact information for Dr.

Naik. I've been able to verify certain of that information from multiple sources, and I can assure you that we will be contacting not only the

Dean Show, but Dr. Naik's people, and trying to find some way to arrange a meaningful debate.

I would like to do two or three debates with Dr. Naik over the course of a few evenings.

I would like to debate the deity of Christ in the Bible. I'd like to debate this issue of Muhammad in the New Testament. I'd like to debate the

Quran versus the New Testament as far as its transmission is concerned. My assertion that the free, uncontrolled distribution of the

New Testament manuscripts across the known Roman world in the first few centuries of the

Christian era is a significantly better mechanism for preserving a text than the controlled, edited methodology that you find under Uthman's control, but still ends up causing problems as far as Ibn Masud and Ubay ibn

Kab, and so on and so forth. I think that would be another excellent discussion that we could have.

But I think that Dr. Naik needs to debate some individuals who can get past his rapid -fire quotation, and take him to the actual text of the scriptures, and examine the claims he's making.

I would love to have had that opportunity with Ahmadiyya, but now Dr. Naik has taken his mantle, and I would very much like to have the opportunity of engaging him for the benefit of the

Muslim people and the Christian people as a whole. I think that would be very good for all sides. So, here is the clip from the

Dean Show, followed by my opening presentation in the debate with Shabir Ali in London a year ago.

That would be November of 2008, on the subject of Muhammad in the

Old and New Testaments. All the scriptures say that the last and final messenger is

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Bible says in several places, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter number 18, verse number 18, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter number 18, verse number 19, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 29, verse number 12, in the

Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse number 16, in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 16, in the Gospel of John, chapter 15, verse 26, in the

Gospel of John, chapter 16, verse number 7, in the Gospel of John, chapter 16, verse number 11 to 14. I can go on and on and on, only quoting references.

All right. Well, there you have a presentation concerning Muhammad in the

Bible. Now, what we didn't hear, interestingly enough, was the Quranic statements that say that we have to find

Muhammad in the Bible. For example, in Surah 7, verse 7, those who follow the Apostle, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the

Gospel. Now, let me just tell you something, we'll have to start. Ring and Brown was Brown in the days of the

Quran. There was no form of criticism, there was no redaction of criticism, there was no naturalistic materialism to provide that way.

The Quran says that they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the

Gospel. And that's the standard we have to look at this evening. Let's start with the last that Shabir presented, that is

Muhammad as the Parakletas, the Paraclete. The majority of Islamic apologists assert that the text of John's Gospel has been corrupted.

So if the current reading, Parakletas, is supposed to be another term, normally Paraklutas, there is, of course, no evidence of such an alteration.

And I am very thankful that Shabir does not make that presentation, despite the fact that it has become extremely popularized by people like Ahmad Didak.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of such a corruption. In fact, it is particularly problematic for Muslims to attempt to allege textual corruption in John, for it is the earliest attested book in the

New Testament. This is true whether one tries to allege textual corruption, such as whether Paraklet was a different word, or what we just heard, some kind of theoretical compilation of the text, later editors, and so on and so forth.

Remember, the Gospel of John is the earliest attested, no later than A .D.

125 in manuscript B .52, which you're seeing on the screen right now. And, in fact, you may have manuscripts that even go earlier than that, and they are of the

Gospel of John. There is no question as to the identity of the

Comforter in the Gospel of John. There is a consistent theme of identifying the Comforter as the Holy Spirit, the one who will take

Jesus' place when he ascends back to the Father. Though the majority of information about the Comforter is found in John 14 -16, elsewhere in John the

Spirit plays a very vital role. That is why Shigeraldi attempts to cut the Gospel into pieces.

You just heard him using Raymond Brown, and you have these earlier texts, and later texts, and redactors, and form of criticism, and all these things.

There is not a single shred of documented evidence anywhere in the world that supports any of those theories.

Not a lot. And I remind you, there's all sorts of theories like that about the Quran, too. All the

Orientalists say, well, this was added to here, and this was added there, and you Muslims say, show us some evidence. Well, that's what

I'm going to be saying this evening. Show us some evidence. There is no physical evidence that John 15 -17 is to be separated from the rest of the

Gospel of John. Speculative theories abound in liberal scholarship about how John wrote the

Gospel, just as speculative theories abound in Oriental scholarship about how the Quran was written.

There are multiple authors who actually serve as, especially al -Baqarah, et cetera. But speculation without physical evidence is not solid grounds for debate.

The Gospel witness to the paraplegic is clear. John 13 -17 is a consistent whole, providing the final ministry of Jesus to his disciples.

John 14 -17 is thoroughly Trinitarian, speaking easily of the divine roles of Father, Son, and Spirit in the divine economy of salvation.

After encouraging prayer to himself, John 14 -14, Jesus speaks of another comforter of the same kind as himself in John 14 -16.

The paraclete will be with believers forever, according to John 14 -16. The world cannot receive the paraclete because it cannot see him or know him,

John 14 -17 says. The same verse tells us the paraclete is the spirit of truth, and the paraclete dwells with and in believers.

This is why you have to try to cut John 16 away from John 14. It's the only way you can come up with an identification of Muhammad.

The paraclete is the Holy Spirit, John 14 -26. I'll address the text of the paraclete in a moment. The paraclete teaches all things and brings to remembrance what

Jesus said. And given how few words of Jesus are in the Quran, that doesn't get it at all, does it?

The paraclete proceeds from the Father, John 15 -26. The paraclete testifies of Jesus, not of himself.

The paraclete is sent by Jesus. If the paraclete is Muhammad, does Jesus send prophets? The paraclete convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

The paraclete guides disciples into all truth. The paraclete does not speak on his own authority, but reveals what is to come.

And the paraclete glorifies Jesus, John 16 -14.

Now, regarding Shabir's entire presentation on this subject, Raymond Brown's theory,

I didn't drag the two volumes set across the ocean as he did. I'll tell you, that's fun to get through a

TSA screening. Theories regarding how a writer wrote his work are speculative.

Many others disagree. Brown himself does not take his own theory to the length

Shabir Ali does. He certainly doesn't. Not a single person, he quoted, comes to conclusions that he did. And he interprets the paraclete as the

Holy Spirit, not Muhammad. It is simply unfair to say Christian scholars have concluded,

Christian scholars have shown. No. Men who call themselves Christians have speculated about something they haven't a shred of evidence to substantiate.

They don't have any hard evidence. They can go, well, you know, we think that there was an evolutionary process that went into creating this book, and here's how it might have happened.

And you can get published that way, but that's not the stuff of solid scholarship in debate.

Why doesn't Shabir know FF Bruce, or Leon Morris, or any of the other great, believing, conservative Christian scholars who have dealt with the

Gospel of John present no inkling of Brown's speculative reconstructions of the writing of the text?

It should likewise be noted that this kind of modern, redactional, critical, speculative scholarship was obviously unknown in the days of Muhammad.

But remember, the Quran says, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the

Gospel. Who in Muhammad's day would find mentioned in their scriptures Muhammad when one needs

Raymond Brown's redactional speculations to find him? Now, regarding John 14, 26, and the phrase,

What you just heard presented to you, C .K. Barrett mentioned, that the Sinaitic Syria does not have the phrase,

What you didn't have mentioned to you was that every single Greek manuscript on God's green earth of John chapter 14 does have taq, hagyar.

All Latin manuscripts contain the phrase. All other translations into other languages contain the phrase.

The Sinaitic Syria is alone here. Now may I simply ask the

Muslims in the audience, would you allow me to come up with a theory about Surah 2, in which

I found a single translation of the Quran from say 250 years after Muhammad into a different language, and it has a different reading from every single

Arabic Quran known in the world. This translation stands alone, yet I insist upon overthrowing all

Arabic manuscripts of the Quran based upon this single foreign language translation. Would you allow me to get away with that kind of disruption of the text of the

Quran? That's what you're being asked to do right now. One translation, one version, the rest of Syria has it.

One single translation. We have earlier manuscripts which contain the phrase, and yet you haven't presented it to you as all of us have.

Well, look at this. Think about that for just a moment. Hence, when the text is allowed to speak for itself, and context is allowed to stand, the identity of the

Parakletas is easily determined. There is no historical, contextual, linguistic, textual critical, or theological reason to find in the

Paraklet a reference to Muhammad, and the context itself precludes any such application by its consistent teaching that the

Paraklet dwells within us. These were promises to the disciples, not someone 600 years later.

If Jesus said these words, as the scriptures say he did, that he was saying to them, he will dwell in you, how can that be 600 years later?

Now, maybe this is because of time. Shabir did not have a chance to get to Psalm 516.

I'll be very brief since he didn't get to it. He did present it to him. I'm not presenting something he's not presented in public talks before.

But again, it is very common. Medina and others have had many

Muslims come up to me and say, ah, see, Psalm 516. His mouth is full of sweetness, and he is wholly desirable,

Muhammadin. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

And so we're told, see, Muhammadin. There's the very word in the Hebrew text itself. There's Muhammad. Here we have an argument based upon an adjective, not even a proper name.

The context has nothing to do with Arabia, prophets, or Islam. To say that this is a stretch is a major understatement.

What is more, linguistic parallels based upon similar sounds are notoriously worthless. Unless there is a contextual reason to turn an adjective into something more relevant, such arguments should be rejected.

But let's take it for a moment. Let's run with it. Let's look at the use of this term elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament. Is Muhammad taken away from the house in 1

Kings 20, verse 6? Is Muhammad destroyed by fire in 2 Chronicles 36, 19? Did Muhammad become a ruin in Isaiah 64, 10?

We need to be consistent. If in the Song of Solomon this is a reference to Muhammad, why aren't these others?

But I have the best arguments. Is Shabir Ali in the

Old Testament? There is a Hebrew name. You're going to thank me for this.

There is a Hebrew word, Shabar. Now, in Psalm 105, 16 it says,

And he called for a famine upon the land, he broke the whole staff of bread. Clearly there have been many famines in the past in London.

Has there not been? It's a fact, isn't it? Furthermore, much bread is made in London too. Think of all the bakeries that are here.

So, since a term that sounds like Shabir appears in this text, translated as he broke, then clearly we have here a prophecy of Shabir Ali coming to London.

How many of you are going to buy that one? I've got some books in the back I'd like to sell them. That's the problem with this kind of argumentation.

Now, I'm going to skip past that particular one unless Shabir comes back to it. I'd like to look at Peter's sermon.

This takes us back to the issue of Deuteronomy Chapter 18. And it has been argued that, and Shabir actually said this in the last part of the last debate that we had, that if you really look at Acts Chapter 3, it seems that there is a, this is talking about a later fulfillment, in the sense that Jesus does not actually fulfill the requirements of being that prophet.

So, in Acts Chapter 3, verses 12 -26, Peter preaches to the multitudes gathered in the temple.

Peter asserts the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection, by the way, against Islamic beliefs, in verses 13 -15.

I've always wondered, if you're going to try to find Muhammad, mention the Old and New Testaments, why do you get to pick which words are actually still correct and which words aren't?

I mean, here in one section, it has the same textual history. You have clearly presented the crucifixion of Jesus, which you deny, and the resurrection of Jesus, which you deny.

And then you have Deuteronomy 18. Same thing in John 14 and 16. You have the same stuff about Jesus, his crucifixion, resurrection, he's going to be with the

Father, he's called the Son of God. Why don't you accept those words? Why do you only accept the ones that you can try to apply to Muhammad?

There seems to be somewhat of an inconsistent standard at that point. Peter describes Jesus, interestingly, in verse 15, as the author of life.

Is Jesus the author of life, or is he a mere resort? That's a good question. Then in verse 18, what

God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets that his Christ would suffer, he has fulfilled.

The early Christian message was that the prophets prophesied the suffering of Christ, which again is rejected by Islam.

This determines the reading of the rest of Peter's comments. The text is announcing God's granting to Israel the opportunity to repent and believe in the

Messiah for eternal life. Therefore, Peter's application of Deuteronomy chapter 18, verses 18 -19 to Christ is part of the call to repentance and faith.

The text is announcing God's granting to Israel the opportunity to repent and believe in the

Messiah for eternal life. And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days,

Acts 3 .24. Notice, these days, not 600 years in the future. Peter then quotes from Genesis 22 and applies all of this to the past coming of Christ as fulfillment, not some future coming of Christ.

That would be the fulfillment of these things. And so, the

Quran claims the Torah and the Injil mention Muhammad. I haven't quoted this one yet, but I want you to hear it.

Remember, and remember, this is the Quran, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, I am the apostle of the law, sent to you, confirming the law which came before me, and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be

Ahmad. Where did Jesus say that? Would a single scholar that Shabir Ali has quoted this evening believe these words?

Remember, almost everyone who's quoted doesn't believe in predictive prophecy in the first place. So, none of them are going to believe that there's anything in the

New Testament about Muhammad. And so, would any of the people, he mentioned

Bultmann and Betz, these people are liberal German redaction scholars who don't believe in any kind of inspiration or anything of the sort.

So, would any of them believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, said these things?

What's the evidence that Jesus, the son of Mary, said this? Again, I'm looking for consistency, remember? I can give you manuscripts of the

Gospel of John. In fact, here I have another text, the text of the earliest

New Testament manuscripts. Here's pictures and transcriptions of all the early papyri manuscripts.

And many of them are of the Gospel of John. I can show you where Jesus said these things. And these come, most of them, within 100 years of the time of Christ, not 600 years later.

Here's the physical evidence. By the way, this is the second volume I brought to you. My baggage will be lighter for you.

I can give you evidence of these things. Where's the evidence

Jesus ever said these things? And yet, I bet you every Muslim in this room accepts that Jesus said this.

When? Right, you're told when. It's the conference. There you go. But the name has been lost.

Okay, okay, you're not up here debating. If you want to do that, we'll do that. So, where's the consistency?

Where's the consistency in chopping up everything we find in the Gospel of John, though you do not have a single manuscript to substantiate your assertions?

At least, if I were to talk about the Qur 'an, and I were to say, well, you know, there's some questions about the early textual history of the

Qur 'an, because there's readings from Ibn Masud. All the early textual history mentions these different readings. And we have palimpsest manuscripts that have different readings.

In, like, Surah 5, you have different readings there about whether it's people who are faithful, with people whose faith is measured.

There's differences in the actual readings. At least I can give you some evidence of that. I'm not just simply saying, well,

I theorize. Where is the consistency? Where did

Jesus ever say this? You have to find the law and the Gospels, the mention of Jesus.

There it is in your own text. And so, the call to remember something Jesus simply never said, and something that's simply untrue, demonstrates a clear and evident error in the text of the

Qur 'an. Jesus never said a word about Muhammad. He did not prophesy about him. And the self -serving claim, this is a self -serving claim.

I mean, this is not the first time that you have a book that comes after the Bible that people have inserted a prophecy about themselves into.

Joseph Smith did the exact same thing. He put an entire chapter in the book of Genesis that prophesied of himself.

There's nothing new here. Those who follow the prophet, the apostle, the unlettered prophet, that they find mention in their own scriptures,

Surah 7, verse 1 -7, in the law and the Gospels. Where? Where?

It's not Deuteronomy. It's not Song of Solomon. It's not the Paraclete.

John the Baptist prophesied of Muhammad. And so you have to theorize some conflict between the followers of John and you have to chop up the

New Testament and come up, where did the people living in the days of Muhammad see him in the scriptures?

We know what the scriptures look like in the days of Muhammad. There's no question about that. We have entire complete manuscripts of the Bible that exist from hundreds of years before that.

Where did they see those things? That's what the Quran says. There were no redaction scholars back there to cut the

Bible up into pieces for them to see these things. Who back there believed anything of what Shabir Ali has said so far this evening in regards to the presentation?

Where were the redaction scholars? Where were the German liberal critics at that time? We do not find

Muhammad mentioned in either law or the Gospel. The text indicates that those of Muhammad's day could do so.

If these two ayahs are false, then what are we to conclude about the Quran? Why include these texts unless the author was seeking to provide support for a belief that is historically untrue?

So we have to conclude that Muhammad is not prophesied anywhere in the

Bible. And given the fact that the Quran demands that we find these things, then that's what makes this debate so important.

And I want to thank you and truly thank you for staying. I know that it's getting later and it's only going to get later before we finish up.

But I thank you because this is where we will really be able to test the consistency of the two sides is in this particular aspect of the debate.

Thank you very much. This is Deuteronomy Chapter 18.

The key to correctly handling Deuteronomy Chapter 18 verses 15 through 19 is the phrase, from amongst your brethren.

From amongst your brethren. It appears, for example, in verse 2 of Chapter 18.

Speaking of the Levites, They shall have no inheritance among their brothers. The Lord is their inheritance, as He promised them.

Now this is speaking about the Levites. And clearly, among their brothers means among the twelve tribes of Israel, as verse 5 makes plain.

For the Lord your God has chosen Him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the

Lord. Clearly, from among your brothers and out of all your tribes refers to the same thing.

Israelites, not anyone outside the specific twelve tribes of Israel. Compare the same usage in the preceding chapter of Deuteronomy Chapter 17, where we see,

You may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you.

You may not put a foreigner over you who is not your brother. So very clearly, this phrase, from among your brothers, excludes anyone else.

So when we come to the key text, the context of Deuteronomy Chapter 17 and 18 plainly indicates that from among your brothers equals

Israelites, not foreigners, Ishmaelites, Edomites, or anyone else. Now this is a consistent means of exegesis, for I recall very clearly many years ago when

Shabir debated Robert Maury, at one point Shabir complained that Maury was not allowing a particular surah to define its own terms, that you had to allow the preceding context and the surrounding context to define the meaning of the terms.

And that's exactly correct. And that's exactly what we're doing right here. So, we finally get to the key text,

Deuteronomy 18 .15, The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me, from among you, from your brothers, it is to him you shall listen.

Now before reading the rest, is there anything in the context that would cause us to look to the Arabs for fulfillment of this verse?

There is nothing in the context that would lead any person reading it to think, oh yes, this is going to be fulfilled in that fashion.

Deuteronomy 18 .18, I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him, and whoever will not listen to my words, that he shall speak in my name,

I myself require of him. Now notice how it is that this prophet is like Moses. He speaks the words of God.

People can come up with long lists of parallels between Moses and others, but the text says that what is similar, what is parallel, is the fact that he speaks the words of God.

Now when we go to the New Testament, we see that the New Testament specifically tells us that this is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Peter preaching in Acts chapter 3 says, Moses said, the Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.

You shall listen to him whatever he tells you. It shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.

And all the prophets who have spoken, this is Peter again speaking, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and those who came after him also proclaim these days, these days being the ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And so you have one of those followers of Christ, one of those close followers of Christ saying this is the fulfillment.

But does Jesus fulfill the parallel that is even found in Deuteronomy 18? He most assuredly does.

Look at John 14, 24. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word which you hear is not mine, but the

Father's who sent me. Jesus talks of the fact that his message is in perfect harmony with the Father. It comes from the

Father. In John 8, 28. So Jesus said when you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing of my own initiative, but I speak these things as the

Father taught me. And so clearly Jesus fulfills Deuteronomy chapter 18. There is no reason in the context to see any other fulfillment than in him.